[MD] Correctness and Usefulness

[Ham Priday]

Hi Platt -- 


> Sorry if my question came across as "mean."  It was a attempt
> to understand what you meant by morality being "relative."
> I see now by your answer that it doesn't mean "culturally
> determined" as postmodernists argue. If I interpret you correctly,
> morality derives from the value of the "essential source" and
> Edington's "Life Force" or "Spark of the Divine" which informs
> us that seeking power to serve perverted causes is wrong.

No offense taken, Platt.  I know your curiosity is genuine.

> What I don't understand is why a Hitler or a Islamic extremist
> couldn't appeal to the same sources to justify the morality of their
> actions.  In other words, just how does the "essential source"
> inform us of what is moral and what isn't? For example, does it
> inform us that all human life is sacred? If so, where does it stand
> on the question of self-defense? More to the basic question:
> how would we know the answers to such questions?

Value-sensibility is not based on "information" or instructions from on 
high.  It is always the individual who chooses the values for his/her 
'being-aware'.  Oddly enough, this is proving to be the most difficult point 
to get across.  A major part of the problem is the MoQ notion that morality 
is designed into the universe, which suggests that there is one "right" 
Value (Quality) that everybody has to "attach to". This couldn't be farther 
from my anthropocentric ontology.

I cannot emphasize enough that each individual is a free agent of Value. 
He/she is driven by value.  But the value that drives us is not a holistic 
unity like DQ or Essence; as finite beings we sense it differentially, 
incrementally, and individually.  Remember that everything in existence is 
differentiated and relational.  The whole point of differentiated experience 
is that it facilitates an infinite variety of perspectives of the primary 
source (Essence) from which we are all separated.  As the finite agents of 
an absolute source, the way we sense value(s) determines our interpretation 
of reality (experience), our thoughts, our desires, and our behavior.

Morality is an inappropriate term for value appreciation because it suggests 
that all behavior is either "right" or "wrong" and that one "ought" to 
behave in a certain way.  This, of course, is contrary to the concept of 
individual freedom where the emphasis is on value motivation, rather than 
behavior per se.  Of course people oppressed by tyranny or fear, whether 
enforced  by dictators or religious mandates, are not able to exercise their 
freedom until they break their bonds by rebelling against the state or 
escaping from it.  I believe fear, even more than the "promises of 
Paradise", is largely what motivates the Islamic terrorists, and this is a 
power strategy of the Imams and Mullahs who rule this theocracy.

To answer your other questions, self-defense is an instinctive response to 
attack that we've inherited from our predecessors.  Without a means of 
defense, a species soon becomes extinct by the law of natural selection. 
That also applies to mankind, although brute response to an attacker can be 
mediated by more rational behavior where appropriate.  Again, Homo sapiens 
are endowed with two unique capabilities: intellectual judgment (i.e., the 
power of reason) and value sensibility (the ability to discriminate or 
"prioritize" values).  Together they suggest a moral principle that I have 
called "rational, self-directed value".  For a society that believes in the 
sanctity of human life and cherishes individual freedom, this principle 
could conceivably lead to a more authentic culture.

But I also believe we need a metaphysical foundation in order to live life 
fully and in harmony with others.  I hesitate using the label "belief 
system" which invariably  connotes "faith" in some mystical or supernatural 
dogma.  However, inasmuch as Essence transcends finitude and difference, it 
is patently "supra-natural", for the same reasons that Pirsig's DQ (IMO) is. 
So, I'm not averse to calling a spade a spade when it comes to wisdom. 
After all, where do we find wisdom in scientific objectivism, nihilism, or 
humanism?

Thanks for the questions, Platt, and for another opportunity to explain my 
position.

Essentially yours,
Ham