[MD] From each... to each

[Heather Perella]

Hello everybody,

> Arlo, DMB, Ham, All:
> 
> [Arlo]
> > Second point, what DMB is saying, and I agree with
> is that the REAL
> > problem here is the SOM foundations upon which
> western culture has been
> > built. The complaints he and I make are based on
> this one, large schism,
> > demonstrated in the one quote "part of the world
> not an enemy of it".
> > The two schism of Pirsig, the classic-romantic and
> the Indian-Victorian,
> > are both demonstrative of the effects of SOM in
> western culture,
> > traceable back to Ancient Greece, but manifest in
> the problems of modern
> > life, which includes how modern political
> discourse has come to work.
> 
 Platt said: "Has it occurred to anyone besides me
that the reason
> SOM holds such 
> high value in Western Culture and why the MOQ will
> have a hard time 
> gaining a foothold is precisely because SOM is
> amoral? 

     Excellent point!  Freedom without responsibility
is not complete freedom, and others want more freedom
- freedom to crap and piss on little children (child
porn) and freedom to do whatever they want even if it
hurts other people (criminals and some of the
residents I work with have this attitude - they don't
care they say, which is another point Pirsig was
making about having quality is to care), isn't that
some of the current discourse in the U.S.

> Now of course Pirsig tries to overcome this by
> suggesting that morality 
> simply means choosing the better of alternatives
> which is something 
> even the lowliest worm does. But Ham's not buying
> it, and not many 
> people I've talked to about the MOQ buy it either.
> Morality to most has 
> to do with human behavior, and most would rather not
> be reminded of 1) 
> the authorities who enforce moral codes, and 2)
> their own guilt when 
> they violate the codes. So what chance does a
> metaphysics that 
> emphasizes morality really have?

     Morality in the head, in the cosmos, in Essence,
or other or whatever.  Once it is here - it is here. 
Yeah, people could be erased from the earth and the
idea of morality with them, but we are intellectual
enough to realize morality.  Intellectuals do realize
morality.  Does the societal level?  Does the
biological level?  Does the chaotic level?  Do either
one or all of these levels express a measure of right
or wrong and what is that measure based on?  I would
say life, and the quality of life perfects such a
notion.  Quality chaos rips through anything, tears it
apart.  Quality biological holds the chaotic grip of
death to the side long enough for hemlock trees to
grow.  Quality societal life keeps itself intact long
enough to live and reproduce itself.  Quality
intellectual life notices all of this and more as to
not just the conditions of life, but also the beauty
of life putting itself in check with balances that
must be kept with each higher level so the quality
level of chaos doesn't let itself loose permanently on
this earth.  Darwin called this natural selection, and
the selection for better or worse depends on so much. 
The criminal in society could win out, but if the
quality of society is held in high regard by its'
intellectuals and the society level accepts such moral
codes much can be done for quality to stay intact on
all levels of existence. 

     And Platt you said at this end of this post I am
commenting on something like we're not getting very
far - well that WE is the people who are not accepting
the quality of a moral universe.  What other way could
their be to understand and attempt to perfect
goodness?  Without goodness in the world, the world
will be not good, and that would be not good for this
world at all.

     I have begun to watch the Nightmare videos that
Khaled linked us to, and the whole right versus wrong,
good versus evil world is a very clear cut
understanding of things that all sides are bringing
into view for the world.  Quality being a foundation
of the world brings in the first inclination of what
people could notice.  They look over there or over
here and could notice quality.  If good and evil want
to be created and self-prophesied, then so be it, that
will be the world society, running around thinking
good and evil are out there and they must find it and
will find it, because good and evil exist.  Quality is
just that.  The world based on what it is - quality,
is a no wiggle room metaphysics.  What of the pain and
suffering in the world?  What of wars and all the
evils of this world?  Is it the world that is evil,
hurt or suffering?  Or, is it the view we have about
the world that brings on this self-fulfilled prophesy.
 I would rather fulfill a world that is Quality.
     Low- quality or high-quality.  Quality it still
is, and with SQ/DQ balance the quality moral order,
once valued, could bring on a flow that is excellent! 
Is MOQ used because it is better, even if it is not
true?  Wouldn't what is better for us in a moral sense
be true for us, also?  I would say yes.
 

SA

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com