[MD] moral judgements

Mon Nov 27 13:37:45 PST 2006

Marsha,

     This is the long-winded version.  The
short-winded version is in the post-script (P.S.). 
This is such a big topic, Pirsig wrote a whole book on
it, but here's a stab at it.
     So, how the universe has goodness, and at the
same time, have what is not good, but also, the
universe would be one.  I see what amoral means here,
but I'm inclined to not think amorally due to my
hesitation in believing this would also mean that no
matter what I do, decide, and experience, the universe
will end up not caring what I do.  The universe will
go on throwing the good and bad at me, no matter my
effort.  Yet, we can create intellectually and
socially a better way to live with nature, which would
mean to me that life can get better, as long as we
begin experiencing an 'at oneness' with nature.  Thus,
quality is here somewhere it would seem.  So, where
does all the bad stuff come from?  Even the long
established levels of biology can have extinctions,
thus, 'things' that will not 'fit in' with the
dq/changes.
     The long-established levels of biology and
inorganic still are under the influence of dq changes.
 Yet, the age (time), Joseph M. mentioned, of these
static levels puts an even greater emphasis on the
lasting quality of these levels.  The social and
intellectual levels are not well-established, so, the
influence of dq changes is of greater frequency upon
these levels.  Yet, even family, a social level event,
is established long enough to have little dynamic
change, but as I've mentioned before somewhere, the
constraints of the lower levels are still under the
scrutiny of dynamic events.  Wherever these dynamic
events come from and where their appearance occurs
firstly, on the inorganic, biological, social, or
intellectual levels, these dq events will send ripples
upon the other levels.  Do these dq events fit into
the long-established static events, and which of these
forces are greater, the sq or dq forces?  Gravity is a
tremendous static quality, but the intellect of human
beings has been able to overcome this sq event.  Yet,
the intellect of human beings has only been able to
use other natural forces to overcome gravity.  Watch a
volcano blow against gravity and jet propulsion is
perceived.  This overcoming of gravity, by the
intellect (planes, rockets, etc...) is only doing so
by finding a way to still fit into the existing Way
here.  
     Maybe all this ethics and morality talk might
bring to mind right v. wrong.  Yet, how we come up
with what is right and what is wrong, at least how I
see it, is based on 'being one with nature' v. 'not
being one with nature'.  What static events have been
so long established that changing them, even with
intellect, takes a lot more strength, but how long
will that dq event take place against the more
established static events.  Why do extinctions take
place on any level?  I don't think it is mere chance,
but also I don't think it is 'the plan' either for
this or that to survive on any of the levels.  Each
day and night events may allow any mighty being to
survive, such as the dinosaurs, but as events are
changing, dynamic quality is usurping the static
quality of those millions of years.  Yet, if the
dinosaurs existed, let's say 500 years ago.  They
might have been able to rule the earth once again. 
So, it's not to say that dinosaurs, overall, have low
quality, and so had to die out for the better things
to come.  It was during the time the dinosaurs existed
that the dq events forced out the dinosaurs.  Just as
any intellectual event may be shut away never
recorded, not used, but you never know, some day or
night the situation of the time may find that
intellectual event valuable enough to latch around.
     I'm not seeing this universe as pointing out this
is right and this is wrong, and we may even be
choosing what's right and wrong as human beings, too. 
Yet, the 'being one with nature' calls for an ability
to adapt for when those moments come, those dq events
that will even possibly flip some of the biological
and inorganic specifics upside down.  But, how likely
is that, well, I'm not sure, but if a big asteroid hit
this planet, I'm sure that would shake things up a
bit, maybe even destroy the atmosphere, and the
inorganic level on this planet would change
significantly.  What of death?  That other natural
event.  It's been static forever for biological
creature I assume, so could we ever 'be not one' with
that other natural static event.  What is right?  I
think it's what's with nature, and biological and
inorganic, and even some social, maybe intellectual,
specifics have been able to connect with this natural
morality of events.  You've got to have enough
calmness, quietness to notice how this universe is,
so, disturbances such as war would not provide enough
intellect to see how events are without the human
dictating of life or death.  So, intellectual level
needs a calm sense of quiet to sort out the events of
this universe, to be aware of what happening here.  I
would say that's an intellectual specific that has
been able to 'be one with nature'.  It is a 'sitting
back' and joining in with the on-goings here.  

woods,
SA    

    P.S. (1) Is morality a question of extinctions v.
survival?
          (2)  Is the universe moral in valuing 'at
oneness' or 'being one with nature'?  
          (3)  Isn't 'at oneness' motivated by
birth/living, and accepting the other natural event of
death?

          Basically, these are the questions I might
be asking and commenting upon.

     [Marsha]
> "But the words get in the way."
> This is hard.  Sometimes I think I'm 'in the
> groove', but then the 
> wind shifts or something, and I'm scrambling to make
> adjustments.
> Funny thing is the last chapter I read before
> putting the book 
> (Lili's Child) down was Chapter 12.  I really like
> what you wrote in 
> the 'Reality is Quality' section.
> No matter how I squint, I cannot understand
> Quality/DQ as other than 
> amoral, beyond good, and beyond morality.   If
> everything is Quality, 
> there is no way to get outside to experience it
> objectively.  Like 
> you said, Platt, you can't kiss your own face. So
> moral statements 
> and judgements are forever incomplete, and therefore
> inaccurate and 
> sometimes even nonsense.  Whether good is a noun
> (thing) or adjective 
> (judgement), it just doesn't make sense.
> Sometimes there seems to be so much contradiction
> that I want to 
> throw it all across the room.  But I will not
> willingly leave this 
> forum until 50% of the participants are women. 
> That's something to 
> think about since most of the important learning is
> taught by mother.
> I'd write more, but that would only create a larger
> tangle of words.
> So can anyone help me put together a coherent
> question?

____________________________________________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Everyone is raving about the all-new Yahoo! Mail beta.
http://new.mail.yahoo.com