[MD] Quality and the Higgs Field: An Analogy

[118]

Hi Ham,

I don't know how to put this any more clearly than John did.

Nature is Quality in action.
Consciousness is Natural
Morality is Natural
Man-conceived is Natural
All derives from Quality
No separation is necessary
It is all here, all now
No secret unknown to create
No other side necessary
Creation not Negation

Cheers as always,
Mark

On Friday, February 4, 2011, Ham Priday <hampday1 at verizon.net> wrote:
>
> On Fri. Feb 4, 2011 2:15 AM, "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.
>
>
> I beg to differ.  Amoral means "being neither moral nor immoral" -- in other words, free of or "indifferent to" morality.  Morality is man's concern, because man is the sensible agent of Value, which alone determines what goodness and badness are.  Morality doesn't "bring about life"; Nature does, and Nature manifests the teleogical design of existential reality.  Music is the creation of man, and beauty is man's aesthetic response to value.
>
>
> 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.
>
>
> "Demonstrably" only in the sense that it is realized by the sensible agent. To say that Morality "exists" independently of sensibility (i.e., as an intrinsic feature of the universe) is to posit a myth.  Without conscious sensibility there is no morality.  Morality is a code of social behavior instituted by man to reflect his value sensibility.
>
>
> 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.
>
>
> Man "actualizes" beingness, which is the substance of existential reality. So, whatever morality is ascribed to the universe is a construct of man's value sensibility.
>
> [Ham previously]:
>
> 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.
>
>
> [John]:
>
> 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.
>
>
> Animals, and other life forms, "exhibit" what we interpret as moral behavior.  Most of this is instinctual, that is, a genetic characteristic that ensures the survival of the species.  Thus, you might conclude from behavioral evidence that animals are capable of value realization, but there's no way to prove this empirically.  It would be like trying to prove that iron filings "love" a magnet because they are attracted to it.
>
>
> 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.
>
>
> More euphemisms based on deductions from observed behavior.  Really, John, you
> should learn the difference between teleology and morality.  If you design a machine to open tin cans, and it does that successfully, does this mean you've made it "moral"?  Physical existence is experienced as an evolving "process" whose course manifests the design of its creator.  The symmetry, order, and goodness of the universe are man's intellectual representations of Essence-Value actualized as "beingness".
>
> [Ham previously]:
>
> 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?
>
>
> [John]:
>
> 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.
>
>
> But, you see, the "difference" is your perception.  As a negated subject, your experience of "reality" is differentiated by the nothingness of your being.  Everything you experience is divided from everything else by that nothingness.  You, yourself, are an "other" to the Oneness of Essence; your only connection with the Absolute Source is your realized Value.
>
>
> 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.
>
>
> Love and understanding are very nice.  They express your respect for fellow creatures.  I'm not so sure about the "biodiversity", but let nature take its course.
>
>
> May the light of my love shine brightly on the biodiversity of
> thy being, Oh silly Ham.
>
>
> Thanks for the blessing, John.  (Maybe you can explain "biodiversity" to me at a later time.)
>
> Still seeing through the glass clearly,
> Ham
>
> 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
>