[MD] MOQ and the Future: An Inquiry into Usefulness

[Ham Priday]

Hi Mark (Platt, John quoted) --

On Nov 3, 2009, at 5:49:12 AM, plattholden at gmail.com wrote:

> The future impact of the MOQ will be acceptance of a universal
> moral code based on reason instead of current mishmash of
> arbitrary social conventions.

[Mark comments]:
> Those are lofty goals indeed, especially if such reason is intended
> for a utopian existence. My worry is the use of such a philosophy
> would in effect dictate control. At the present state of human mind
> development, I often see the term, reason, as justification.
> For example in the phrase "The reason behind my doing this is:...
>
> I still find it hard to imagine reason separating itself from the
> psycho-emotional.  This may indeed be possible once the mind
> has evolved. My guess is that we still have a way to go. However,
> that is not to say that reason could not experience a jump of
> some kind or another. As it stands, for me reason is still tightly
> linked to the basic emotions, deadly sins if you will.

You and Platt are on the same page moralistically, and I concur with your 
sentiments.  I also believe a moral code (which is really social control of 
behavior) must be based on Value selection.  As John Carl reminds us, "it is 
emotions that provide the groundwork for selection based on social quality. 
Without emotions there could be no social status, celebrity, honor, etc. but 
emotions themselves are part of a mammal's biological response to its 
environment."

Let's assume that Pirsig's Quality is what I've been calling Value.  (After 
all, he did equate the two.)  How, then, can we use value to improve the 
existence of mankind?  With reason of course.  But I think we would all 
agree that reason alone is not sufficient for a moralistic philosophy.  The 
problem seems to be that value perception has an emotional component, and 
emotional responses are seen as inimical to reason.  This need not be the 
case, however, if reason is exercised to control or mediate behavior.

There's a principle here that Pirsig's "moralistic philosophy" misses, and 
it conceivably could be the "jump" that Mark is looking for.  Man is 
uniquely equipped with both reason and value sensibility. The former is 
grounded in logic and pragmatism which have universal acceptance, whereas 
the latter is psycho-emotional, which means that it is realized (felt) 
individually.  With due respect for Pirsig, morality is not inherent in the 
universe; it's a convention of man.  Moral systems work when they 
effectively harmonize cultural behavior with individual desires and 
aspirations. They fail when imposed on the individual as a legal mandate or 
prescribed dictum.

Because value is realized individually, the worst thing a philosophy can do 
is to make people forget they are individuals and think of themselves as a 
collective species, like so many ants in an anthill.  That destroys 
value-sensibility and free initiative and makes man an automaton of the 
collective tribe, cult or state.  History teaches us that a moral consensus 
is a reasonable solution to individual differences.  But it is precisely 
those differences which make us discriminating creatures capable of 
realizing the value of excellence, aesthetic beauty, social justice, 
self-reliance, personal integrity, and human compassion.

I envision an "authentic society" of the future in which laws and 
commandments are superfluous, where each man is his own authority, and where 
"rational self-directed value" is the modus operandi of human behavior. 
While it is likely that a valuistic philosophy will be the instrument to 
achieve that utopian existence, I'm extremely doubtful that the MoQ as 
presently conceived has the universal acceptability needed for such a 
radical social transformation.

But I'd be happy to be proven wrong.

Best regards,
Ham