[MD] Is Morality innate in the cosmos?

[Platt Holden]

Ham -

P: 
> > I don't see a "fixed cosmic morality" in a principle of betterness.
> > There is no fixed end point at which betterness is achieved.
> > It is infinite.

H: 
> If the morality is "fixed" (your word), then it must be the "standard of
> betterness" by which all behavior would be measured -- that is, if we could
> know what that standard was.  You seem firmly committed to that belief.

By "fixed" I meant like a fixed theory of change such as the theory of evolution.
Morality is fixed, but change for the better is part of its meaning. Morality is not
static. Some of what was considered good by the Elizabethans is not considered good
today, like bear baiting.  

> But
> this "principle of betterness" as you define it can only be the optimum
> goodness (summum bonum) for the relational world.  It is an attempt to make
> infinite and perfect something that by nature is finite and imperfect.  A
> reality consisting of sentient beings and their experienced objects can
> never be measured on the scale of perfection.  Only the absolute Source can
> qualify as perfect.

The principle doesn't define the "optimum goodness." It simply suggests infinite
improvement which cannot be intellectually defined but is felt on the pulses.

> > Which IMO leads to a morality of "anything goes." Then civilization, with
> no
> > rational universal principles to uphold it, slowly disintegrates -- as
> have
> > hundreds of civilizations before ours. On what basis will you defend your
> > culture against attack if the other culture's morals are as authentic as
> yours?
> > "Better Red than dead" was the cry of 60's Hippies. Had that idea
> prevailed, I
> > doubt if you and I would be having this conversation today.
> 
> That is not necessarily true.  After all, "anything goes" has been
> operational in human behavior since the dawn of civilization.  So far it has
> produced the advanced cultures of ancient Egypt and the Roman Empire, the
> Age of Enlightenment, and Western Democracy.  We can regress, of course, and
> surrender these achievements through negligence, apathy, and indifference to
> the values of our culture.  But it is not our "fate" to do so.  As you say,
> it is always possible to aspire to betterness.

I think you make my point about evolution towards betterness, suggesting that today's
values are an improvement over yesterday's and that a return to those earlier values
would be a "regression." Thus, if such regression were a result of an attitude of
"anything goes," as indeed it might, you would judge it a negative result of human
behavior. That's why I think "anything goes" presents a problem.  

> While I was listening to the State of the Union speech tonight, I was again
> struck by Bush's commitment to "spreading Freedom and Democracry throughout
> the world".  That is a misconception.  It is futile to force democracy on a
> culture that does not acknowledge the value of human freedom.  We don't need
> to spread freedom; it's already there, innately, in man.  If we must
> "spread" something, it should be the knowledge that all individuals are
> free, that we are not enslaved by the will or doctrines of a judgmental
> deity, and that the key to cultural betterness is respect for the values
> that move us individually and collectively toward human achievement.

If freedom is innate in man, how come some cultures don't recognize it? 

> I am reminded of Rose Wilder Lane's eloquent appeal to this principle:
> 
> "Very few men have ever known that men are free. Among this earth's
> population now, few  know that fact. For six thousand years at least, a
> majority has generally believed in pagan gods. A pagan god, whatever it is
> called, is an Authority which (men believe) controls the energy, the acts,
> and therefore the fate of all individuals. The pagan view of the universe is
> that it is static, motionless, limited, and controlled by an Authority
> ...that all individuals are, and by their nature should and must be,
> controlled by some Authority outside themselves. ...[But] a time comes when
> every normal man is a responsible human being. His energy creates a part of
> the whole human world of his time. He is free; he is self-controlling and
> responsible, because he generates his energy and controls it. No one and
> nothing else can control it.
>                                                                             
>     -- Lane: "The Discovery of Freedom"
> 
> 
> > Yes, I understand we have different ideas about
> > consciousness and its existence beyond nervous systems.
> > For me, consciousness is something the brain. that big
> > bundle of nerve tissue,  taps into rather than creates.
> 
> Yes, and it's precisely that phrase which got me involved in the debate over
> the "collective consciousness" last year.  If the intellect, consciousness,
> and morality are all something we "tap into", then what is left for the
> individual as a free creature?   What is man's role in the cosmos? Where is
> the autonomy?  Indeed, what is the value choice?

Man can choose to expand his connection with consciousness or not. Most men choose
not to. But many do, through scientific inquiry and art. That was the whole point of
Pirsig's final words in his SODV paper. "What I saw here were two artists in the
throes of creative discovery. They were at the cutting edge of knowledge plunging
into the unknown trying to bring something out of that unknown into a static form
that would be of value to everyone. As Bohr might have loved to observe, science and
art are just two different complementary ways of looking at the same thing." You Ham
are one of those artists. :-) 

> > You speak of self-awareness as if that was the only
> > legitimate type of awareness, at least as it relates to values
> > and purpose. You see, I disagree with that premise.
> > I observe my cat having lots of values and lots of purposes,
> > mainly to nap at every possible moment. :-).
> 
> I'm sure you have a very intelligent cat.  But does your cat do something
> that any other cat does not do?  Does a cat nap because it values rest?
> Does it subjectively value its life purpose?  Your use of "legitimate" here
> is pejorative.  I don't wish to demean your pet (I'm a cat lover, too), but
> your cat gets along fine with sensory awareness and a rudimentary level of
> cognizance.  It may even prefer certain brands of catfood.  But -- come on
> now, Platt -- can you really call this valuistic judgment?  I'd be
> interested to know just how much your cat appreciates Rachmaninoff's Third
> Piano Concerto.  One meow worth, or two??

My cat enjoys things I will never, ever know about, like the taste of a mouse. But if
you're saying my consciousness is greater than my cat's, I'd agree. My favorite
example of this is the old joke about a fish when asked how he enjoyed being in the
ocean replied, "What ocean?"  

 
> > Well, the question of "proof" is an interesting one
> > as you know only too well.  In my book you look at a
> > theory like you look at paintings and choose the one
> > you think best. Scientists like paintings filled with
> > mathematical formulas and measurements. I like
> > paintings that hint of something beyond objective
> > verification -- paintings that suggest levels beyond
> > what we fully understand. Or as Edgar Allan Poe put it:
> > " . . . to make one see or hear with shivering
> > delight a sight or sound which cannot have been
> > unfamiliar to angels."
> >
> > I would guess you experienced something like when your theory of Essence
> fell
> > into place for you. I felt like that after reading "Lila."
> 
> I think what you're saying is that the experience of value is more "sensual"
> than intellectual.

Yes, absolutely. But I would not say "experience of value" but rather "experience is
value."

> We can sometimes sense the value of what we can't fully
> comprehend.

Sensing and valuing are inseparable. They happen simultaneously. And they always come
before comprehension or intellectualization.

> Those are precious moments.  The "proof" is in the pudding -- 
> or, in this case, the taste of its value.  There is a certain satisfaction
> in having arrived at that "hint of truth" in our appreciation of art, music,
> and philosophy.  Concerning the latter, I didn't experience it all at once;
> but, yes, I continue to feel it falling into place.
> 
> But my greatest pleasure would be to see it fall into place in someone
> else's weltanschauung.  I hope I live to see it!

I'm sure you will. :-)

Morally yours,
Platt

-------------------------------------------------
This mail sent through IMP: http://horde.org/imp/