[MD] Essentialism and the MOQ

[Ham Priday]

Chin --


I think it's time to cut to the chase.

You said:
> The role of man would be a simple one,
> live your life in Quality.
> Any improvement in the world will come from this
> concentration on Quality.
> Quality is not dependent on other beliefs,
> and doesn’t, IMHO, need metaphysics to qualify
> the benefits of Quality in life, nor does it need to
> concentrate on creation, as man is what man is,
> man came from where man came from, and the
> only matter would be to improve the lot of man
> (including woman as an equal;)

Is living your life in Quality any different than living your life in
Goodness?

Isn't what is Good relative to what we want, what we enjoy, what we think is
important, what we think is just, what we think is beautiful?  A rabbi once
said: "God expects man to be good."  From a theistic perspective, I submit
that God expects man to DISCOVER WHAT GOODNESS IS.  Such is the difference
between a philosophy that preaches morality without trying to define it and
a philosophy that defines reality without trying to moralize it.

If man "is what he is" and "came from where he came from", why do we need
philosophy?  Psychologists and physiologists can tell us what man is,
biologists and anthropologists can tell us where he came from, and
estheticans and sociologists can tell us what morality is.

You say "the only matter would be to improve the lot of man."  Isn't that
what Science and Technology are doing?  And what about the "individual" man;
isn't that more fundamentally important than the "lot" of man?

To accept the existence of intelligent life in an ordered, self-sustaining
system without questioning its source and purpose is to my way of thinking
naive and arrogant.  It is also nihilistic.  You say [Quality] "is too
simple for metaphysics."  I agree.  Then let's use metaphysics to discover
the real meaning of life, instead of fooling ourselves that pretty metaphors
like Goodness and Quality have any essential meaning or can "guide us to a
moral life".

> This may be my own “predetermined prejudice,”
> that no one can know creation, and therefore any
> philosophy that defines creation is accepted only on faith.

Clearly man is designed for a more noble purpose than accepting life at face
value.  We have the intellect, intuition, and spiritual drive to understand
our role in existence.  Sure it takes "faith" and belief in a source of the
values we are capable of appreciating.

> It would not be avoiding metaphysics,
> but the degree of metaphysics needed.

What are you -- a philosophical "moderate"?   If anything, we need to use
metaphysics to its utmost potential.  It seems to me, Chin, that you have
chosen to dismiss all that philosophy offers and cling only to the mantra of
Quality -- a word that its author won't define much less explain in terms
that are meaningful to the individual.  The fact that it "sounds like" a Zen
Buddhist concept does not impress me.  To me, that is "accepting something
only on faith."

[Ham, previously]:
> I do not see Quality by any definition as a non-conditional
> entity that can stand by itself as the primary reality.

[Chin]:
> This would be due to a belief man needs guidance in order
> to be moral.  It stands pretty well on its own if you simply
> think “Is there Quality in everything?”

What kind of "guidance" does a single word give us?  The easiest way to
destroy moral values is to teach a child that "everything is good".  The
child will grow up believing he can do no wrong.  The same is true if we
convince ourselves that the universe is innately moral.  It relieves the
individual of any need for discernment or discrimination.  It also demeans
the principle of individual freedom.  If everything is Quality and Goodness,
exercising free choice serves no purpose except to foul up the moral system.

> Does God have Quality? Does the Buddha have Quality?
> And, if you think of the universe as anything other than
> accidentally designed, does the universe have Quality?

Nothing has Quality unless we value it.  Otherwise it's an empty word.  We
can't value something that we don't believe in, understand, and incorporate
in our life-experience.

> Everything our understanding is built on, from the stories
> of the Bible all the way out to the stories passed on by the
> American Indians is the Quality inherent in the heroes of
> these stories, analogous of how we should be, and if not
> what we have become, the direction we have followed
> to get there.

How many MoQers value the Bible?  How many Americans value Indian culture or
its folk heroes?  Mary Poppins and Harry Potter probably have more value to
contemporary Americans.  There's your Qualityland!

> Yes, I like Quality, but do not worship it -- it is not
> needed or required.

Again, to paraphrase Goldwater, moderation in the pursuit of wisdom is no
virtue.  But I'll try to keep your tepid position in mind for future
discussions.

--Ham