Building a Rationally Moral Society

Can we use intellect to structure society and determine moral codes of behavior?

That goal's certainly been the dream of intellectuals since the 1920's. They advocated using our intelligence rather than blind adherence to tradition to determine the best way to behave in society. As Pirsig notes in Lila:

The new intellectualism of the twenties argued that if there are principles for right social conduct they are to be discovered by social experiment to see what produces the greatest satisfaction... The scientific test of a 'vice' should not be, 'Does society approve or disapprove?' The test should be, 'Is it rational or irrational?'

For example, drinking that causes car accidents or loss of work or family problems is irrational. That kind of drinking is a vice. It does not contribute to the greatest satisfaction of the greatest number. On the other hand, drinking is not irrational when it produces mere social or intellectual relaxation. That kind of drinking is not a vice. The same test can be applied to gambling, swearing, lying, slandering or any other 'vice.' It is the intellectual aspect not the social aspect that dictates the answer...

It was expected that with the new application of reason, sex could be handled much like other commodities without the terrible tensions and frustrations of social repression exposed by Sigmund Freud.

But the unleashing of biology from its social level shackles has not proven to be as straight forward as the intellectuals had hoped. Because our current intellectual culture and the metaphysics that supports it still has no way to intellectually determine what is both good and bad behavior - and so it has therefore been the product of both..

From the perspective of a subject-object science, the world is a completely purposeless, valueless place. There is no point in anything. Nothing is right and nothing is wrong. Everything just functions, like machinery. There is nothing morally wrong with being lazy, nothing morally wrong with lying, with theft, with suicide, with murder, with genocide. There is nothing morally wrong because there are no morals, just functions.

Now that intellect was in command of society for the first time in history, was this the intellectual pattern it was going to run society with?
As far as Phaedrus knew, that question has never been successfully answered.

Pirsig thought a solution to this would be to look back, beyond the Victorians, to the Puritans who saw the value in the vices for what they were aiming to achieve.

Drinking, dancing, sex, playing the fiddle, gambling, idleness: these are biological pleasures. Early Puritan morals were largely a suppression of biological quality..

What the Metaphysics of Quality concludes is that the old Puritan and Victorian social codes should not be followed blindly, but should not be attacked blindly either. They should be dusted off and re-examined, fairly and impartially, to see what they were trying to accomplish and what they actually did accomplish toward building a stronger society. We must understand that when a society undermines intellectual freedom for its own purposes it is absolutely morally bad, but when it represses biological freedom for its own purposes it is absolutely morally good.

So the difference in approach between the MOQ, the Victorians, and the reactionary 1920's intellectuals is teleological. The latter two are simply about the extremes of maximization of satisfaction or the blind suppression of biological freedom. The MOQ is instead about focusing on which values build the strongest society.

Indeed, it is this nuanced appreciation for the evolutionary role of social values that makes the MOQ far superior to our current Subject-Object Metaphysics. Because it's with this distinction that we can appreciate the underlying value that did exist in the two misguided approaches that came before it. That is, both the puritan value of creating a harmonious society through the suppression of destructive biological values as well as the intellectuals value of using the power of rationality to structure a moral society.

The MOQ therefore, is not prudish. That is, it isn't blindly against biological values. But it is strongly against uncontrolled biological values that create social decay. The test for whether society should tolerate any biological behavior is how much social destruction it creates. With the MOQ we can uniquely shine a sharp light on this social values destruction in a vastly more powerful way than our current metaphysics.

I suppose the question then is, when will our intellectual culture see this beauty of the new metaphysics, and use it to make the world a better place?

DON'T FORGET TO SHARE THIS POST!

TOPICS:

David

Self Improvement

Improving the intelligence of strangers - Modern Day Socratics

Look out! We have Ancient Greek Socratics walking amongst us! They roam the streets of the world and question anyone willing to chat about their beliefs.

Welcome to a growing phenomenon known as Street Epistemology. Just like Socrates, the adherents to this movement claim to only be interested in the truth! They strive to - at the very least - raise some serious doubts in their interlocutors mind whilst they have a friendly chat about what some of their beliefs are..

From a Metaphysics of Quality perspective this is on balance a good thing.

Encouraging people to think further about things they claim to believe in is only healthy and mostly an invitation to be a better person who is more intelligent. Encouraging intellectual thought like this is moral according to the Metaphysics of Quality (MOQ).

Belief from a metaphysical sense is a very slippery word and so is not supported by the MOQ. Quality isn’t something you believe in. Quality is something you experience. And unlike anyone’s belief it can be empirically supported. Folks can’t get out of bed without deciding that it's better to do so!

That said, I think that Street Epistemologists, as with all modern day intellectuals, can improve their arguments around this so they are even more persuasive in their striving for the truth.

An illuminating part of the discussion above is where the interlocutor, Madison, is clearly taken by Anthony's intellectual honesty and is curious to know what it is that drives his pursuit for truth. The answer he provides her as the 'believer' at first doesn't seem to satisfy until he provides a very curious closing sentence.

"It's about trying to make the world a little bit of a better place."

Madison looks curious as if asking for more..

"I guess my presupposition is that the more true things that we believe - the better it will be for humanity.'

To lay this out from a Metaphysics of Quality perspective - it should be clear here firstly that Quality is indeed what is driving his pursuit of the truth in that first sentence. The second sentence is even more curious however as he appears to imply that he simply believes that things are true as well. That's Truth! Based on a belief? Where's the 'solid foundation' gone?

This seems like a simple problem that should have a simple answer but within a Subject-Object Metaphysics there is no such foundation. It is indeed only a belief that truth is fundamental and sound. And just like every other statement it is open to dialectical questioning. This is not the fault of Anthony but a clear metaphysical flaw of the Subject-Object Metaphysics from which he is operating. Of course the solid foundation of truth is Quality but he can't say that. He doesn't have the Metaphysics for it. It would for sure be interesting to have conversation with him about this. A future blog post perhaps?

In fact it would be interesting to perform Street Epistemology in much the same way as Anthony does - for the most part very skillfully - but with a key difference. And that difference would be an explicit understanding of the foundation of truth and what we are all indeed stiving for and living. Quality. A Modern day Sophist.

DON'T FORGET TO SHARE THIS POST!

TOPICS:

self-improvement _video intellectual-morality cultural-values culture

David

Self Improvement

Daily exercise is moral

Daily exercise is moral. There I said it. This is an unusual sentence but one that is logically correct and actually also more truthful and honest than any other statement about exercise.

It's a sentence that I can only say because I'm using a metaphysics that is built for this 21st Century. A metaphysics that allows us to move beyond all traditional interpretations of morality and place even everyday activities into a moral context. A moral context that isn't just logically true for me in my place and time - like our current morality would say, but it's true and moral for all people, everywhere.

I can say this because I can philosophically and logically justify the sentence using the Metaphysics of Quality (MOQ). Because unlike Zazen as described in an earlier post, exercise, as static quality; does have clear qualitative justifications for why its a good thing. In fact, whilst it is fundamentally a biological activity - it’s actually something that’s good on every level and this is really why it’s so moral to do every day.

For example, intellectually science is increasingly demonstrating the benefits of regular exercise. It has been shown to benefit the health of both body and mind in many ways. But the biological effects of feeling good as well as the social benefits of looking good are both empirically verifiable and legitimate as well.

And as an aside - this is also another reason why the celebrities I wrote about in my previous post are so good. They show that you can do professional level exercise and yet maintain a moral vegan diet at the same time - both things supported by the MOQ.

Personally I’ve recently been spending up to two hours a day at the gym doing various cardio and strength based exercises. But for someone who has limited free time for exercise, studies are increasingly showing that High Intensity Interval Training (HIIT) is an effective way of getting fit and healthy in an extremely time limited way.

Along these lines please enjoy a video above showing a daily HIIT routine that basically anyone can do so long as they are honestly pushing themselves through.

DON'T FORGET TO SHARE THIS POST!

TOPICS:

self-improvement _video youtube cultural-values the-law-of-the-jungle intellectual-morality the-law culture

David

Art

Sustainable energy is beautiful

With the news filled with mostly emotive, sensationalist and often sinister headlines - it's good amongst all this dark to remind ourselves that there's the potential for a bright future ahead. So, amongst all this dark - here's a cool photo of a solar panel farm! One day - all energy generation will be sustainable and good for the environment and some of it will look like this!

Beautiful and moral - so good!

Karsten Würth (@inf1783)

DON'T FORGET TO SHARE THIS POST!

TOPICS:

art culture

David

Cultural Values

Cultural Values: COMPETITION

Like to compete? I don't. Too numerous a time have I been hurt by someone competing without realising we were even doing so. Competition at the wrong time can bring down even the staunchest of competitors when, without realising, after trusting his teammate, he is suddenly blindsided by highly competitive and selfish behavior.

But beyond this kind of once off usurping of usually good competitors - constant competition within the workplace or within teams can be detrimental to team members mental health and physical wellbeing. Propagating continual stress and fear of losing out is not a good environment to be around and yet my experience is that it infects many a workplace and teams..

And so for this reason, I'd like to delve into this value some more and gain a better idea of the good and bad of competition and what, if any, insight the Metaphysics of Quality (MOQ) can bring..

As I see it there's two good things about competition.

Competition supports the fact we are social creatures who value social status.
We cannot ignore social values and the inherent social rankings that go with them. As human beings who are social creatures it is only natural that we enjoy a certain amount of competition and the potential increases in social standing that go with them. Therefore it's about finding the right kinds of competition that are 'healthy' and those that are not. Competition between teams for instance; with the right playful attitude can be very healthy and productive. That is whilst still allowing for intra-team or intra-company co-operation and all of the shared social and cultural benefits that go with it as well.
But to be clear what it does not support is selfish individuals acting only for their own benefit at the expense of the larger group or team. Using the language of the MOQ - that is called putting ones own social standing or celebrity status above that of the team when it doesn't make intellectual sense to do so. In other words; that is called valuing social quality over intellectual quality and is immoral in the MOQ.
Competition that comes about as a result of opening up a system is a secondary good to its openness.
By avoiding groupthink or group polarisation, and opening up a system whereby different solutions can be created to a problem; the best solution will then be able to naturally arise. Once this has occured - each of the solutions could be said to be competing but that isn't necessarily a motivation for these 'competitors' and isn't necessary for different options to be proposed.

Capitalism actually works in this very way. It's not the fact that companies are competing with a love for the social value of competition that capitalism works (although this can help with the right kind of competition as described above in the first example). It's because capitalism is more open to Dynamic Quality and simply allows for multiple solutions to the same problem to arise. From those solutions it then has a built in monetary mechanism for rewarding the best solution.

Which brings us finally to the key modern day myth of 'selfish capitalism' that underpins many an immoral intra-company competitors thinking. It also happens to be a key myth which at least most layman have heard of and understand regarding captialism. And as I will explain it is an understanding that without moral context - allows the propagator to get away with immoral behavior.

'Selfish capitalism' - a myth named which, whilst not named this way by its proponents, is essentially what it is. This myth has a person, who is a ruthless competitor and who is only out for themselves, and who will do just about anything and break just about any moral code, all in the name of money.

This is the strength of capitalism a neoliberal might tell you. A kind of individual John Galt figure out against the world.

'A person who is only out for himself, competing, and succeeding, gaining celebrity and money. For how could they succeed any other way? Isn't that what capitalism is all about? Competition? Breaking and bending rules is all part of the game!'

A standard modern day capitalist.

But this myth with its roots in the value of competition - neglects the first good of the importance of healthy co-operation and the morality of respecting the health of the team and not valuing ones own social status over the team. And it completely ignores the second good whereby different solutions to a problem arise not directly because of competition but because capitalism is more open to Dynamic Quality than any of its alternatives!

But from this investigation we can see that the Metaphysics of Quality can morally support a new myth! One still of an individual within a capitalist system. But rather than selfishly competing - is healthily competitive yet isn't driven just by this competition; they know what's right and wrong; they appreciate that there's more to live for than money and social status; and also they can see the old myth for what it is and was - logically immoral.

DON'T FORGET TO SHARE THIS POST!

TOPICS:

cultural-values intellectual-morality culture