[MD] Is Quality Value?

[Platt Holden]

Hi Ham,

In the spirit of the season I'll postpone our current debate until after 
the holiday. My wish for you and yours is to have a wonderful Christmas 
filled with joy and happiness. Beauty becomes all-embracing at this time 
of year -- from the sparkle of decorations on a Christmas tree to the 
radiance in the eyes of a child -- evidence to me of Beauty's transparency 
to Spirit, or, as you might say, Essence.

 All the best, Platt       


> Platt --
> 
> I'm really not obsessed with matters of relativity, whether it's
> differences between various animals, plants or chemicals, or comparative
> sociology.  The main reason I'm battling this out with you is that I
> recognize Philosophy is essentially Morality to you.  So if we can't come
> to some agreement on what morality is, I'll never reach you with my
> metaphysics.
> 
> In the spirit of the season, let's see if there's something we can agree
> on.
> 
> [Platt]:
> > Pirsig says a convicted murderer shouldn't be executed if he poses no
> > threat to the structure of society, saying even a murderer has ideas, and
> > ideas take moral precedence over society. I disagree with that view. I
> > don't see any evidence that convicted murderers, rapists, pedophiles and
> > other assailants can become messiahs.
> 
> I agree with your rejection of Pirsig's assertion, but not because
> murderers and terrorists do not become messiahs.  (Actually, they
> occasionally do. Mohammed's history was not exactly that of Little Orphan
> Annie, but he was viewed as a prophet despite the blood on his hands.) 
> Pirsig's statement would exonerate the likes of Adolph Hitler (although he
> committed suicide), because he "had ideas".  Surely Saddam Hussain has
> ideas; would a death sentence by the Iraqui Court therefore be immoral?
> 
> [Ham, previously]:
> > What does "the norm" mean if not "relative to the society in
> > question"?  How is one to know what the "norm" may be for Quality?
> 
> [Platt]:
> > The norm is different for everyone, depending on one's physical makeup
> > and life experiences. Some people feel physical pain more than others,
> > for example.
> 
> You seem to be making my point here, Platt.  The norm is different (i.e.,
> relative), that is, "depending on one's physical makeup and life
> experiences".   Some people are also more sensitive to the pain of others
> because they are more "attuned" to the value of life.  We call it human
> compassion.  This feeling or sensibility is a psycho-somatic value
> response, and it's related to individual self-consciousness from which one
> develops a "moral conscience".
> 
> [Platt]:
> > Animals compete under the biological level morality of "might makes
> > right," also known as the "Law of the Jungle." What's relativistic about
> > that?
> 
> Are you trying to sell me on the "Law of the Jungle" as an absolute
> morality system?  Wouldn't that justify the maxim "Might makes Right"?  
> (Maybe that's why we're having so much trouble  putting down the
> terrorists.  They believe this; we apparently don't.)
> 
> [Platt]:
> > So your idea of morality is whatever the mob in any particular locale
> > says is right is right? Come, come, Ham. We can do better than that can't
> > we? Surely a society whose members believe it's right to send some of
> > it's citizens to gas chambers is immoral.
> 
> Morality isn't MY idea, Platt.  Actually, I think we'd do better without
> it. What I've been trying to say is that any group of people who ban
> together and form a society can be described anthropologically in terms of
> the behavioral patterns and conventions they adopt.  This is their
> morality.  It isn't handed down on tablets of stone; it doesn't come out of
> thin air; it's not an absolute standard.  It's a reflection of the
> individual values shared collectively in a society.
> 
> Now, to the extent that collective behavior is unduly influenced by what
> you like to call "the mob" or external authority, it can be allowed to
> contradict individual values.  When people are content to mirror the
> opinion polls or defer to authority when making decisions, they are
> surrendering their individual freedom to the collective mentality. 
> Metaphysically, if not morally, this is irresponsible human behavior.  I
> think you would agree to that.
> 
> [Platt]:
> > Ah, your "value sensibility." Is THAT the standard of morality that I and
> > Arlo and everyone else ought to adhere to?
> 
> You're putting the cart before the horse.  Trying to establish a moral
> position without some kind of belief system as its foundation is foolish.
> If you have no values, you can't tell right from wrong.  If you don't value
> life, you have no morality.  Understanding comes from studying how
> existence works, participating in it with fellow human beings, and opening
> your awareness to its values.  But until we can satisfactorily answer the
> "why" of existence, at least for ourselves, we are playing with
> uncertainty.
> 
> This is why I put so much emphasis on metaphysics, which is the single
> non-authoritative approach to fulfilling man's spiritual and valuistic
> needs.  The MOQ apparently suffices for you.  I happen to think
> Essentialism leaves less room for doubt by addressing the questions that
> are fundamental to a belief system.  We can't know all the answers, but
> until we've arrived at a philosophy of life that merits personal
> conviction, we're not equipped to prioritize our values into a personal
> morality.  It's probably the last step in the process.
> 
> [Ham, previously]:
> > Moral decisions [are] based on [one's] individual sense of
> > Value; they are not mandated by an absolute source.  Which means that you
> > and I are free to choose and act on the values with which we identify.
> 
> [Platt]:
> > Which means anything goes because my "sense of value" will be different
> > in some respects that yours, or Arlo's or the lady over there behind the
> > tree. With such a view, anarchy cannot be far behind. After all, who are
> > you to judge?
> 
> It isn't my place to judge the morality of others; only they can be
> accountable for their actions.  I can only judge my own actions in
> accordance with my belief system.  (Incidentally, I'd get rid of that guy
> and his lady friend who are constantly lurking behind your tree.  Paranoia
> is not conducive to philosophical understanding.)
> 
> There's an old adage: 'We reap what we sow'.  I believe that the essence of
> man is the value he nurtures in this relational world.  Value is our finite
> sense of Absolute Essence, experienced "from the outside", as it were.  But
> because Essence transcends the relations of finitude, its value is never
> lost.  Like Eckhart, I also believe that the ultimate union of the "lover"
> and the "love object" (which is what Value really represents) is infallible
> because the essence of every individual is that of his Creator.
> 
> Have a pleasant Christmas Eve and a Christmas Day filled with beauty.
> 
> Ham