[MD] dualism redux (to Ron)

[Kevin Perez]

Quoting Ron, Ham wrote,
 
> > How close is "betterness" to "goodness"?
 
Excellent question Ron.  Pehaps a topic for our next conversation at the
Victory Brewing Company.  Ham, how near are you to Downingtown, PA?
 
> You would not need to ask that question of me.  An essentialist understands
> that values like goodness (and evil), beauty (and grotesqueness), important
> (and trivial), are subjectively realized by the individual and are not a
> universal principle of the objective world.
 
Right, goodness is subjectively realized and not objectively "out there," separate and independent from anything.  But it's not in the eye of the beholder either or
whatever a person wants it to be.
 
> Aesthetics and Morality are standards established by a culture to reflect
> the values of its members, in the same way that laws are passed in a
> democratic society to represent their constituents' concept of justice.
 
Yes, objectively, as abstract constructs to define the society and give it form,
structure, identity and the means to the healthy ego-development of children.
 
> Thus, the answer to such perennial questions as "What is right?" or "What
> ought we to do?" is left to man who is the Choicemaker in the universe.  If
> it were otherwise, man would have been designed with perfect wisdom.
 
Correct to a point.  The concept of tabula rasa goes only so far.  Ham, I can't
agree with you on this because I see people as more than biological machines,
or blank slates at birth.  The more correct view, imo, is both nature and nurture.
 
> If you convince yourself that you must have "divine guidance" for these
> choices, you'll be looking for some external authority or religious canon to
> tell you what's right and wrong.  Of course, that means you surrender your
> innate freedom as an authentic individual.  But, then, human beings have
> been doing that for thousands of years.
 
It's not a must.  It's an is.  We have an innate connection with all of reality, all of
life, the oneness or as I prefer to say the indwelling spirit of God.  Any other view
is dualistic, imo.
 
> This failure to acknowledge individual freedom is another shortcoming I find
> with the MoQ heirarchy of Quality.  When Pirsig relegated Intellect and
> Goodness to the cosmic "collective" he effectively eliminated Value from the
> proprietary consciousness.  If the universe is a "moral system" programmed
> to evolve toward "betterness," then what role does the individual play in
> this world?
 
It's both/and, imo.  Both the cosmic connection established by Reality and the
moral system established by people.  It's about the interaction between both.
 

Kevin
 

 
---------------------------------
Don't get soaked.  Take a quick peak at the forecast 
 with theYahoo! Search weather shortcut.