[MD] Subjectivity in the MOQ

[Joseph Maurer]

On Tuesday 17 March 2009 6:39AM Platt writes to Joe:

> Hi Joe,
> 
> First of all, I'm entirely in agreement with the purpose of these
> discussions being a large measure of fun. When it ceases to be
> fun, time to move on.
> 
> Second, in a book dedicated to "An Inquiry into Morals" that
> we're discussing on this site I think we should not shy away from
> talking about morals, not with the idea of telling others how to
> behave but simply examining current moral questions in light of
> the insights provided by the MOQ.  Hopefully that can be done in
> a spirit of civility without mean-spirited personal attacks that
> some here are prone to flame whenever their views are challenged.
> 
> Finally, your distinction between order and manifestation is not
> clear to me. Is it the difference between the law as written and
> the law as practiced? If you would care to expand on the idea,
> perhaps with some examples of the difference, I would appreciate it.
 
Hi Platt and all, 

Levels are described in a hierarchical order creating a basis for morality.
Inorganic, organic, etc., a law of four or seven. Usually order is
self-evident

A manifestation is within the same order.  The activity is seen from three
points view active +, passive -, or neutral 0. Laws can be passed against a
natural manifestation and judges decide the morality. IMO criminality is a
matter of judgment unless the event destroys evolution (natural law).

Joe

On 3/17/09 6:39 AM, "Platt Holden" <plattholden at gmail.com> wrote:

>> On Saturday 14 March 2009 5:34 PM Platt responds to Joe;
>> 
>>  
>>> Hi Joe, 
>>> 
>>> Thanks for responding, but I don't grasp your point. Do you think
>>> moral choices are relative to individuals and/are cultures or
>>> not? It would seem from Pirsig's SODV quote that it is. But, that
>>> would put a kibosh on his idea of a universal morality would it
>>> not? To put it another way, what moral standards does the MOQ
>>> propose, if any? If there are standards, by what authority would
>>> they be enforced if each individual is allowed to make
>>> moral choices based on his life history?
>>> 
>>> Thanks,
>>> Platt
>> 
>> Hi Platt,
>> 
>> IMO Pirsig posits a moral order of evolution: Inorganic etc..  Is this
>> hierarchical order in existence, the metaphysical basis for a moral
>> judgment?  What is being judged? Is it a manifestation of an individual
>> person within an event or the hierarchical order?  IMO According to
>> Pirsig
>> there are four orders in existence inorganic, organic, social,
>> intellectual,
>> a moral order.  I prefer an analogy to the musical scale for order,
>> seven
>> levels in DQ existence.
>> 
>> What is the measure for a manifestation within a particular order?  Does
>> MOQ
>> the statement of the order, DQ/SQ the experience within the order
>> qualify?
>> IMO these three things are present in an individual manifestation.  What
>> it
>> is, what it is not, what is the neutral support level (+,-,0).
>> 
>> Can I observe a law of 4 or 7 in determining the level for order?  A law
>> of
>> three to determine the manifestation?  IMO Both are involved in a moral
>> judgment.
>> 
>> Enforcement is good or bad.   I don¹t know if my thoughts are any
>> clearer?
>> The metaphysics of morality (experience) is difficult without
>> commandments
>> or particular decisions to judge.
>> 
>> I would guess the standard of authority to be what is metaphysically
>> described.  And here I thought we were just having fun!
>> 
>> Joe
> 

 
> Moq_Discuss mailing list
> Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
> Archives:
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
> http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/