[MD] Quality and the Higgs Field: An Analogy

[118]

Hi John,
Yes, scales of Morality.  Floods have morality from water's
perspective.  But, to keep it Human, let's call such a thing Quality.
Morality is an expression of Quality, after all.

Quality has a driving intent.

Mark

On Thursday, February 3, 2011, John Carl <ridgecoyote at gmail.com> wrote:
> 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
> 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
>