[MD] Stuck on a Torn Slot

[118]

Hi Ham,
Thanks for your response.  I have further discussion below.
Mark

On Sun, Dec 5, 2010 at 10:21 PM, Ham Priday <hampday1 at verizon.net> wrote:
>
> Hi Mark --
>
>
>
>> In my opinion, the concept of morality in humans is an expression
>> (or extension) of a more profound Morality.  We certainly express
>> it as humans do, but this does not mean it does not exist as a "force"
>> elsewhere.  This is why I subscribe to Quality from the ground up.
>> Trees have a morality of their own, which we could never
>> understand intellectually except to say that if it occurs in humans,
>> it occurs in everything.  We are not special in that sense.
>>
>> This takes a bit away from the definition of morality as we have as
>> humans, but that is to be expected, and doesn't diminish it.  We call
>> it morality, a planet may call it orbiting.  Don't take this example
>> too literally of course.  Planets do "choose" a certain orbit however,
>> and we make other "choices".  Where these choices come from in
>> humans is somewhat of a metaphysical or paradoxical mystery.
>> Thus we subscribe to higher orders.
>
[Ham]
> I appreciate this clarification of your morality concept, Mark, as I am sure
> Horse will also.
>
> The concept of universal morality is of course a theme of Pirsig's MoQ:
> "Morality is not a simple set of rules.  It's a very complex struggle of
> conflicting patterns of values. This conflict is the residue of evolution.
> As new patterns evolve they come into conflict with old ones.  Each stage of
> evolution creates in its wake a wash of problems."  --[LILA]
>
> The MoQ makes Quality not only the Creator of the experiential universe but
> the 'summum bonum' of Aristotle's Ethics.  Actually, Pirsig's
> multi-equivalent equation should read: Experience = Quality = Reality =
> Morality.  He has even thrown the archaic term 'Arête' (excellence) into the
> mix as a final appeal for this concept.
>
[Mark]
I am not sure about Aristotle, I would claim linkage to Tao.
Aristotle created a set of Truths which he subcategorized.  I don't
know if your synonym approach is accurate.  We certainly experience a
reality, but this could be considered a byproduct of experience.  I
prefer to see Morality as a form of expression, rather than as an
overarching principle of everything.  Previously I have tried to
express Quality as that which separates.  We can experience that
separation, but this doesn't mean that Experience is Quality.  It is
part of our differentiation as you would say.  Some things are
experienced as high quality others as low.  So, in this sense all the
terms you present above are not equal.

> I don't happen to subscribe to this view of morality, nor do I believe in a
> moral universe.  Whatever ends or goals are immanent in nature are known
> only to the Designer and are usually referenced in the context of
> 'teleology'.  Teleology may be what you have described as your "more
> profound Morality," Mark.  It has to do with the symmetry and order of the
> universal design rather than with behavior-related moral principles whose
> virtues and vices are relative to the observer.

[Mark]
I believe that morality is expressed in our universe.  A math analogy
is useful, but can be misleading.  There is beauty in symmetry, but
this may be a result of math being symmetrical, and we create our own
beauty.  Levels of order are created, they are not inherent.  That is
to say, that predisposition to order is not part of the creative
process.  This may be part of your projection of teleology on my
thoughts, discussed right below.

I don't have a problem with the concept of design since that is the
way it would appear in hindsight.  The design of evolution, for
example, is a perfectly rational statement.  Also, I have no problem
with the Knowledge of a Designer since that only states that the
design is known.  Not as a brain construct, but as a Universal
Understanding.  We could say that all that is, is understood.

I'm not sure what you mean by teleology.  I would guess it would be
the end defining the means.  I would say that my understanding would
be that: the result of a creative process does not necessarily define
how it got there.  If I see a puddle of spilt milk on the floor, I do
not immediately know how it got there from the way it appears.
Perhaps you meant something different.

One can say that all ended up the way it did because it was
preprogramed to do so.  This is where I would bring in the concept of
free will and choices that shape the material world.  These are not
predictable.  We could bring in the notion of statistical
predictability, but even that falls apart at each unique decision.
Free will is an important part of my appreciation.

>
[Ham]
> If you don't consider yourself a moral relativist, I invite you to read an
> essay archived on my website titled "Confessions of a Moral Relativist".  It
> may surprise you to know that it's a sermon by a Unitarian minister who gave
> me written permission to run it on my Values page.  "Are there, in the end,"
> he asks, "actually such things as 'moral absolutes' of either a religious or
> secular nature?"  His answer is no.  This paragraph explains his
> justification:
>
> "Morality, values, and ethics are not just important, they are essential to
> human survival and well being.  This is why we have them and why they have
> evolved, albeit in a rather halting fashion, over the course of human
> history.  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; and therefore-as I view
> it-has a certain sacred quality about it for that reason alone.  A moral
> relativist is one who recognizes the broad moral and ethical values and
> precepts that have served the cause of humanity over the course of human
> history, and who seeks to apply those values and principles in whatever
> personal, or social, or socio-political situation it is that calls for moral
> decision making."  --[Steve Edington, Confessions:
> www.essentialism.net/confessions.htm]

[Mark]
Yes, I have no problem with what Rev, Edington states in your quote (I
will look at the whole thing).  He is describing human morality.  What
I would state is that human morality is an expression of a more
expansive morality.  I don't think that we develop morality out of
nothing.  We are a continuum of the ongoing expression of the
universe, not something separate and somehow different.  Our human
notion of morality is simply our way of translating the overall moral
expression.  It is quite possible that the erosion of a valley is a
moral pattern, I don't know, perhaps it is something different which I
still need to think up.
>
[Ham]
> As for "planets choosing orbits", if the universal design embodies cosmic
> "excellence", the orbit will not be a free (moral) choice of the planet but
> an existential representation of its "intelligent" Designer.

[Mark]
The whole concept of choice is a tough one to create analogies for.
We believe that we have choice, I am using that concept.  A planet
also "believes" it has choice.  There are also deterministic ways of
looking at our reality, which is what I believe you are pointing to
here.  However, our belief in free choice must come from somewhere.
Again, we cannot make this up out of nothing.  Since we believe we
have choice, why not a planet?  I do not think it is something
peculiar to a bundle of nerves.  Our choices may be considered more
complex, but this is simply a question of magnitude.
>
[Ham]
> Thanks for explaining your view of Morality, Mark.

[Mark]
Your welcome Ham, always a pleasure interacting with you.
>
Morally yours,
Mark
>
> 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/md/archives.html
>