[MD] self: agent of action & thinker of thoughts

[Ham Priday]

Hi Joe --

On Thurs, 8/18/11 5:16 PM, "Joseph Maurer" <jhmau at comcast.net> wrote:

> Hi Ham and All,
>
> DQ, indefinable levels in existence, evolution, makes sense to me,
> a base for a moral hierarchy.
>
> Is evolution a meaningless word?  Your use of the word "morality",
> on a site exploring the meaning of DQ/SQ indicates to me a decisive
> judgment for good or bad behavior without indicating the
> metaphysical basis for judgment beyond an acceptance in faith.
>
> Imho "Moral" value tied to evolution for value-sensibility is a judgment,
> beyond the Yes or No of SOM.  DQ, indefinable, is the arbiter for
> sense or nonsense in an individual.  SQ, defined, is the judgment.

Indefinable levels mean nothing to me unless I try to define them, and then 
they take on the properties of my imagination.  In Pirsig's imagination they 
supported a "moral hierarchy", but there is nothing implicitly moral about 
evolutionary existence.  For me, existence is an ordered, self-sufficient 
system which encompasses a diversity of finite entities ranging from the 
simplest to the most complex.  Because I experience existence as a sequence 
of events, I tend to view it as a causal process that moves the world to 
greater complexity.  But this, in itself, is not morality but rather a 
design that represents in diversity what its source is absolutely, while 
affording a life-supporting environment for sensible creatures.

Good or bad behavior can occur for many reasons, the most noteworthy being a 
response to one's core values.  Rather than a judgment call, I prefer to 
think of value-sensibility as "preferential".  So, when you say I offer no 
metaphysical basis for judgment, you overlook the metaphysical principle of 
free agency which, in my opinion, is the whole point of conscious 
existence.in a relational system.  The free agent is not "tied to evolution 
for value-sensibility".  On the contrary, value-sensibility is the essential 
core of individuality (selfness) whereby virtue and morality come into being 
in our evolutionary world.

Reason, not Quality (DQ or sq), is the arbiter of sense and nonsense, and 
reason is a product of the human intellect, just as morality is a product of 
human sensibility.  Value (or what you folks call Quality) is man's affinity 
for the absolute Source.  Experienced only differentially, it neither 
controls him nor tells him what is right or wrong.  That decision is left to 
the free agent who, as Protagoras famously observed, "is the measure of all 
things."

Valuistically speaking,
Ham

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _


6 PM, "Ham Priday" <hampday1 at verizon.net> wrote:
> <snip>
>> Yes, progress is being made even as we speak.  As I've said before, 
>> morality
>> is a human precept, which means that value-sensibility is prerequisite 
>> for
>> moral judgment.  This precept "doesn't quite fit" the MoQ paradigm which
>> posits Value (Quality) as a universal truth or principle.
> <snip>