[MD] Essentialism and the MOQ

[MarshaV]

Greetings Ham,

I read Edington's paper, 'Confessions of a Moral Relativist'.   To 
quote Edington:

"Moral relativism is the recognition of this simple truth: That 
morality is of human origin and has evolved along with humanity 
itself for the sake of human survival and human well being"

This was a very thoughtful article.  By the arguments presented in 
this article, I might call myself a moral relativist.

It also fits with my present thinking that morality is a binding 
agent of static quality.

Marsha








At 02:35 PM 11/27/2006, you wrote:

>Laramie, Marsha, SA --
>
>Laramie said (to SA):
> > I wasn't the one proposing an amoral universe.
> > IMO the universe is pro-life.
>
>The universe produces cognizant creatures like you, so in that sense it may
>be regarded as "pro-life".  But that isn't morality; it's evolution with a
>purpose -- to make being aware.  What are living beings like you aware of?
>The value of the Creator.  What are you cognizant of?   The being you call
>existence.   The finite things you experience in life represent the value
>you sense differentially and intellectually convert to beingness.  The
>universe that you construct as the appearance of being is an amoral system.
>As the "free agent" of this system, YOU determine its values.
>
>Marsha said:
> > Now I'm really spooked.  In these last dozen posts of this
> > Subject, I am basically agreeing with Ham.  And I don't
> > see a contradiction between what he is stating and the
> > 11/16 quote.
>
>And I am very gratified by your understanding, Marsha.  Here is part of the
>quotation I think you are referring to:
>
>"But that which causes us to invent the analogues is Quality.
>Quality is the continuing stimulus which our environment puts upon us
>to create the world in which we live. All of it. Every last bit of it.
>
>``Now, to take that which has caused us to create the world, and
>include it within the world we have created, is clearly impossible.
>That is why Quality cannot be defined. If we do define it we are
>defining something less than Quality itself.''    (ZMM, Chapter 21)
>
>That is a rare Eckhartian statement by the author of the MoQ.  If you
>substitute the word Value for "Quality", Pirsig's statement may be seen to
>reflect my viewpoint.  I do try to define Value, of course.  I call it
>"Man's affinity for Essence", and my definition presupposes that the
>sensible core of the self is a "negate"; that is, it is deprived of Essence
>when it comes into the world.  The whole life-experience is the process of
>the self attempting to reclaim its lost Essence in its perceived values of
>beingness.
>
>SA asks:
> > Are we to make moral decisions based on it doesn't matter,
> > due to the universe is amoral?  People are in the universe.
> > How we may live, in a chemical ridden creek or no poison
> > in the creek.  Creek, people, and much else is of this universe,
> > not really seein' what amoral means.
>
>My philosophy of Essence has a morality too: It holds that man is free to
>choose his values, and thereby shape the world by his decisions.  If the
>universe were perfectly "moral", there would be no free choice: we would all
>be bound (progammed) to act in accordance with perfection.  Obviously, this
>isn't the case.  We can't survive as independent creatures without
>evaluating the choices that ensure our survival.  But we are all FREE to
>"make mistakes", to live immorally, to reject (or fail to recognize)
>goodness, and choose "poor quality" or evil values.  Ultimately, it is the
>values we choose in life that determine our essential reality.
>
>For a very convincing essay on the relativity of values, I encourage you all
>to read "Confessions of a Moral Relativist" which is actually a sermon by
>Steve Edington, a Unitarian minister.  You can access it at
>www.essentialism,net/confessions.htm .  It may change your thinking about
>Pirsig's "moral universe."
>
>Thanks for all your responses to this topic.