[MD] Essentialism and the MOQ

[PhaedrusWolff at carolina.rr.com]

Ham) 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".

Chin) You assume we need guidance, as most in our culture do. This is 
the result of looking toward religion for our morality. Man is evil 
because the Bible says his flesh is evil. 

Quality does not make this assumption. By concentrating on Quality, 
you take care of this morality and goodness naturally. You do not need 
guidance from other man’s interpretations of the Bible. 

Ham) 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.

Chin) Of course we have intellect, intuition and spiritual drive. It 
is in us, not outside of us sitting out on a cloud. All we need is 
faith in ourselves. It is not accepting life at face value, but 
changing life as these values change. 

Ham) 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."

Chin) I would consider myself a philosophical realist, but I would not 
follow any philosophy that would define me as such, as I do not feel 
current philosophy is tied to preexisting philosophy to the point you 
must adhere to the philosophy of someone who has not been exposed to 
the knowledge we have gained more recently. Philosophy should evolve 
as philosophical man evolves, as morality should evolve as moral man 
evolves. 

Ham) 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.

Chin) You make the assumption the free mind is not capable of defining 
this Goodness through the intellect. The child develops their moral 
values, as they develop intellectually as well. Forcing our moral 
values on the child may just as well hinder the child’s ability to 
develop their own. We should simply talk to them the same as we talk 
to each other here. They will most likely develop beyond what we might 
consider to be empirical truths, so we may want to listen as well.  

Ham) 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.

Chin) What is there to say we don’t have Quality? The preachers and 
teachers who tell us only they are capable of understanding morality, 
the Good, or Truth do not advance us; they destroy our creativity and 
hinder our inner development. 

Ham) 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!

Chin) It might be your Qualityland. I don’t remember ever hearing 
anyone here speaking of Mary Popping, Harry Potter, or any other media 
source which offers the sleep-walking American’s their Truths. 

Ham) 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.

Chin) Why should I value Goldwater’s view over mine? 

What comes from within me, I find to be as close to truth as anything 
anyone else has to offer. If some of Goldwater’s words touch me, so be 
it, but I see no reason to believe he is any more capable of defining 
the Quality life than any other philosopher, teacher or preacher. Each 
have their own contributions, and all thoughts should be considered, 
but not worshiped as The Word. 

What I compare in Ancient Zen Buddhism to MOQ is that Ancient Zen 
Buddhism offered only tools for searching for Truth and Goodness. The 
Zen Master did not offer a set of statements of Truth and Good, but 
only hints, tools for searching. 

Few are going to find the inspiration and dedication of the Buddhist 
Monks in transforming themselves, and few would find the pure love of 
Christ nature or Buddha nature for this transformation. Buddhism will 
not translate well into our Western thought any more than doing peyote 
with my Cherokee relatives. These are cultures we are unfamiliar with. 
Concentrating on Quality in everything you do and become will most 
likely be as close as any of us are going to come to transformation in 
what you are calling Goodness, and any change that will come in our 
culture would be slow and steady like your science. It will simply 
work its way in as DQ replaces the static SQ in our thinking. 

Chin