[MD] From each... to each

[Platt Holden]

Hi SA:

>      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.

As Pirsig pointed out, the "good" is different at different levels, and 
the levels fight one another for dominance. What is biologically good 
(germs want to live) is not good at the social and intellectual levels 
(we kill deadly germs so society and individuals can survive). Another 
problem with "the world is good" is that people have different ideas 
about "goodness." Radical Islamists think it's good to decapitate 
infidels and otherwise inflict pain and suffering. Many in the West 
believe it's good to defeat radical Islamists by likewise inflicting 
pain and suffering on them. So good and evil are relative to Pirsig's 
levels or whose side you are on in a conflict. Since most people never 
heard of Pirsig's moral levels they take the latter as their cue in 
deciding moral questions, like "You're either for us or against us." To 
go much further in contemplating moral questions is what most people 
avoid, like they avoid contemplating their own demise, the worst evil 
of all. For that reason I'm suggesting that one of the barriers to wide 
acceptance of the MOQ is its emphasis on morality which most people 
would rather not think about in any depth.

Platt
  



 
>      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 
> moq_discuss mailing list
> Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
> Archives:
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
> http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/