[MD] moral judgements

[Platt Holden]

SA:

If I understand you correctly, you agree with David M. that your moral
decisions are self-directed, influenced by a few people but mostly 
from communicating with the natural world. 

My initial reaction was that to me and Pirsig the living natural world 
is ruled by "a morality called the Law of the Jungle" (Lila, 13). That 
moral code results in life that is fearful, brutish, nasty and short -- 
not my idea of a moral base for humans to rely on. 

However, on second reading I came up with another interpretation,  that 
you consider a decision to be moral if it can be seen to open 
communication between all the levels, and immoral if it tends to block 
such openness. Would that be somewhat close to your view?

Thanks.
Platt

>       My moral judgments are similarly made with
> specific guidance from trees, deer, and bears, wise
> ones such as my father, etc...  I have not been one to
> rely upon people for moral guidance unless they are
> close in values, thus, I am familiar with their
> efforts and trust their guidance, for, their guidance
> comes from similar paths.  I have also been known to
> trust my family, but even there if arguments stir, I
> have always been the peacemaker in the house, that's
> what my father says.  I now work at a facility that is
> all about people, oddly enough.  Yet, I see the break
> down in communication fairly often, so, physical,
> hands-on situations are a necessity at times, or else
> the anger and defiance leads to unsafe situations for
> all the people involved.  This lack of communication
> where stubbornness feeding off of anger leading into
> verbal and physical aggression so somebody can get
> their own way, without peaceful means, embodies strong
> distinctions in this environment as to how people are
> good and not so good.  It's still that idea of the
> ecosystem or the woods where birds sing and deer graze
> and all of these events in the woods are able to bond
> so much into a harmony that the distinctions melt
> away, and thus, as I walk in the woods, that could
> mean a groundhog walking into a hole.  Even the
> carnivorous actions of a red-tailed hawk eating a
> rabbit just seems to fit snug in this world.  
>      Yet, what is it at work where an obvious break
> down occurs upon this continuum of the woods.  Where
> the nondistinctions of the woods are terribly made
> distinct into pains and distresses.  The hawk eating
> the rabbit is a continuing of life, a nondistinction. 
> The resident yelling at everybody, even those that
> talk softly to them in order to get some kind of line
> of communication in through to them, yet, their ears
> and mind have shut everybody off, and it is a
> break-down where boundaries are erected.  This lack of
> communication at work demarcates where the woods come
> to a slow hinder.  It is these lines of communication
> or lack thereof which is at the very core of moral
> judgments for me, at least I think it is.
>      If deer are talking to me, that is no boundaries
> are being erected between us, then the distinctions
> can melt, my mind is at ease and thus resting, and I'm
> just livin' consciously alert with this stream of
> life.  If the residents are not talking to me, that is
> boundaries are being erected between us, then the
> distinctions arise, my mind is not at ease and I can't
> rest, and I'm seeing and feeling life being controlled
> and directed for somebodies own wishes and gains,
> trying to muster enough life-force/power to control
> all those around them into what is unnatural. 
> Unnatural due to this primary reality being forced to
> disappear for the gains and wishes of one or a few
> individuals, forcing reality to be only them, and they
> are not letting reality be spread out for all to
> enjoy.  This nonspreading of reality, at least to how
> I'm sqing this, is making boundaries, controlling the
> flow, and thus distinctions forming that are being
> forced to stay distinct.  The spreading out of reality
> has reality seen to be everywhere and thus no
> distinctions are made as to where reality is or is
> not.  In this case, reality is just here, everwhere. 
> It is an odd sqing maybe, and it is an odd way for
> reality to act under certain conditions, but it is the
> controlling of the flow or the noncontrolling of the
> flow opening these talks, these lines of
> communication.  That's how I'm making moral judgments.