[MD] Quality and the Higgs Field: An Analogy

[John Carl]

Ham the purportedly amoral,


>
> John, are earthquakes, floods, disease, deformity and death moral?   Is
> genocide, tyranny, rape, theft, and corruption moral behavior?   If the
> universe is "moral", how is it that we experience or engage in such evils?
>

Earthquakes - amoral
floods - amoral
disease - immoral
deformity - immoral
death - moral
genocide - immoral
tyranny - immoral
rape - immoral
theft - immoral
corruption - see "theft"

You see, Ham, when you use a really big term like "universe" that's the
whole enchilada.  That's everything there is, including man and all
relations he experiences.  "A-moral" means that there is no morality
whatsoever.  An a-moral universe is one in which morality is completely
absent.  If that were the case, there would be nothing for it is what I term
"good" that brings about life and music and beauty.

In this universe of ours we find both good and bad, the moral and the
immoral.  That scale of relative morality that your cognizant agency is
aware of, must exist because it's demonstrably real.  Abstract it from the
universe and the universe as we know it would disappear.  (You did read
ZAMM, I presume, and are aware of Pirsig's eloquent reductio ad absurdum
which proves this point beyond question?)

Perhaps when you say "the universe" you are thinking of something that is
entirely separate from man, but that's silly.  Man is part of the universe.
Man demonstrates moral choice, therefore the universe is not amoral.



> Mark and others have already pointed out that "if everything is Quality,
> then Quaity doesn't exist"   In other words, we need "low quality" as a
> comparative referent.  The same is true of morality.  It is man himself who
> differentiates and measures the scale of experiential values.


As I pointed out, what kind of universe do you know that doesn't include
man?  And anyway, I do not posit man alone as the only differentiator of
values.  Animals demonstrate moral choices also.  I would even posit that
all life, to an extent, demonstrates moral choice, simply because I simply
define "moral" as that which encourages life in all its diversity.  If there
are other beings in this "universe" that you seem so cock-sure of, then I
would say they too have morality.



>  Doesn't this suggest that moral order is a valuistic concept of human
> beings to ensure their survival in a collective society?
>


Morality is more than mere survival.  Cancer cells are immorality to a body,
especially when they thrive and survive.  Man's survival alone does not
guarantee morality.  Especially in a collective.


>
> Consider the alternative.  If morality were a universal principle, and
> nothing bad ever occurred, how would we know what was "better", "worse" or
> imperfect?   What would be the moral point or meaning of such an existence?
>
>
Exactly.  Morality is a scale, a line of good and bad.  That is the moral
order - not that everything is good, but that there IS a difference between
good and bad.  If the universe was purely amoral, there would be no
difference between good and bad.


> We stand at the crossroads of our moral spectrum.  Our value sensibility
> determines what is good and bad in the universe, and our rationality enables
> us to choose the most appropriate action.  My moral axiom is "rational,
> self-directed value."  What is yours?
>
>
My moral axiom is loyalty to the good, wherein I define what is good by what
increases biodiversity on the biological level, that which promotes love on
the social level ( and hey, what IS so funny about peace love and
understanding?)  and that which increases knowing/perceiving  on the
intellectual/artistic level.



> Seeing through the glass brightly,
>
> Ham
>

May the light of my love shine brightly on the biodiversity of thy being, Oh
silly Ham.

John