David


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.

_video youtube cultural-values self-improvement the-law-of-the-jungle intellectual-morality the-law
David
She's a judge!


From a biological perspective men and women have very different needs and I'm not so sure our shared cultures have fully come to terms with this fact.

Generally speaking, evolutionarily, a man's needs are very simple, whilst a woman’s a bit more complex. Rather than simply a partner with obvious aesthetically genetic beauty; as a judge - women choose what behaviours and traits a man needs to display for those traits to continue and ensure the survival of our species.

Below Robert Pirsig talks about the need for a man to ensure he can satisfy her in any way she deems necessary. But what are those requirements she creates? Are there some traits in men that the majority of women - consciously or otherwise - look for? Perhaps there are biological traits that all women look for because it gives them hints that he will be able to provide for them, provide safety, and ensure the survival of their offspring?

And if that's the case, then is the commonality and biological nature of those traits fully appreciated and understood by our culture? Or is it that because our culture doesn't use the Metaphysics of Quality, they're not appreciated and fully understood?

This is the question that I want to answer in a future post. It's a moral question because it gets to the heart of the types of questions the Metaphysics Quality shows its strength in answering. It will allow us to easily distinguish between biological value and social value and then to use intellect to find the best solution. A solution which would appreciate that biological quality exists and yet lights the way to the the moral and intelligent way of dealing with it. But for now - enjoy the below beautiful quote from Pirsig in Lila..

"From the cells' point of view sex is pure Dynamic Quality, the highest Good of all.. This same attraction which is now so morally condemned is what created the condemners.

Talk about ingratitude. These bodies would still be a bunch of dumb bacteria if it hadn't been for sexual quality. When mutation was the only means of genetic change, life sat around for three billion years, doing almost no changing at all. It was sexual selection that shot it forward into the animals and plants we have today. A bacterium gets no choice in what its progeny are going to be, but a queen bee gets to select from thousands of drones. That selection is Dynamic. In all sexual selection, Lila chooses, Dynamically, the individual she wants to project into the future. If he excites her sense of Quality she joins him to perpetuate him into another generation, and he lives on. But if he's unable to convince her of his Quality - if he's sick or deformed or unable to satisfy her in some way - she refuses to join him and his deformity is not carried on.

Now Phaedrus was really awake. Now he felt he was at some sort of source. Was this thing that he had seen tonight the same thing that he had glimpsed in the streetcar, the thing that had been bothering him all these years? He thought about it for a long time and slowly decided that it probably was..

Lila is a judge. That's who lay here beside him tonight: a judge of hundreds of millions of years' standing, and in the eyes of this judge he was nobody very important. Almost anyone would do, and most would do better than he.

After a while he thought, maybe that's why the famous 'Gioconda Smile' in the Louvre, like Lila's smile in the streetcar, has troubled viewers for so many years. It's the secret smile of a judge who has been overthrown and suppressed for the good of social progress, but who, silently and privately, still judges.

'Sad Sack.' That was the term she used. It had no intellectual meaning, but it had plenty of meaning nevertheless. It meant that in the eyes of this biological judge all his intelligence was some kind of deformity. She rejected it. It wasn't what she wanted. Just as the patterns of intelligence have a sense of disgust about the body functions, the patterns of biology, so do Lila's patterns of biology have a disgust about the patterns of intelligence. They don't like it. It turns them off."

lila-quote cultural-values the-law-of-the-jungle
David

Human behavior creating global warming is metaphysically immoral and veganism is a moral solution.

In the previous post we established that not changing our behavior in response global warming is immoral. In line with this, according to a report by two World Bank advisers the animal agriculture industry surprisingly contributes to around fifty-one percent of all global emissions. From this study we can conclude that consuming less meat would dramatically reduce our harmful impact on the planet. But why haven’t we heard of this before?

To answer this, the video above shows some of the statistics found in a documentary called Cowspiracy, and it explores why this might not be as well a known cause as the direct burning of fossil fuels. Reasons provided are the reluctance of charities to confront the public about such a large change in behavior, and the power of the animal agriculture industry in stamping out dissent.

But in addition to morally valuing biological life on earth by not suffocating it with inorganic CO2 there is another benefit of not consuming animal meat. This benefit is the correct valuing of biologically more evolved animals over that of their less evolved counterparts – plants and grains. As Robert Pirsig writes in Lila:

An evolutionary morality,.. would say [eating meat is] scientifically immoral for everyone because animals are at a higher level of evolution, that is, more Dynamic, than are grains and fruits and vegetables.. It would add, also, that this moral principle holds only where there is an abundance of grains and fruits and vegetables. It would be immoral for Hindus not to eat their cows in a time of famine, since they would then be killing human beings in favor of a lower organism.

Robert Pirsig

Thirdly, that’s not to mention the growing list of health benefits that can be found in reducing the amount of meat in your diet and improving the overall biological quality of the people on the planet.

Therefore these three key reasons make veganism moral on many levels and supported by the evolutionary hierarchy of the Metaphysics of Quality.

_video youtube intellectual-morality the-law-of-the-jungle
David
The Evil of Disregarding Climate Science

The MOQ is a beautiful intellectual framework. As an intellectual framework, it uniquely shows that it’s both immoral and illogical to not change our behaviour in response to global warming. Traditionally, the argument to change our behaviour goes something like this:

“We are running a dangerous experiment to see how much CO2 we can pump into our atmosphere. At its worst, global warming threatens the existence of mankind. The right thing to do is to heed the dire warnings of climate scientists. They speak of rising water levels and increasing global temperatures. With these increasing temperatures and rising water levels, mankind may be no longer able to survive. So we should, we must change our behaviour.”

This argument has many opponents however. From those in power who like things the way they are to those co-opted by power with bogus arguments about the validity of the science.

That’s because, without the MOQ, climate change opponents and even proponents are easily able to question the validity of truth and scientific fact. They are also easily able to immorally question the content of those facts for their own monetary gain.

With the MOQ however, we can make the argument for change much stronger. With it – the issue of climate change becomes not only a matter of fact but as a matter of quality. It does this by showing that not only is it moral to change our behaviour, but it’s evil not to. An MOQ argument for changing our behaviour follows:

“If we don’t value the biological quality of the life in our oceans and allow inorganic particles of CO2 to fill our planet. Then allowing this lower level to subsume the higher level is immoral. If we allow the social values of money and power to trump the intellectual truths of scientists explaining the threat. Then this is immoral. The threat of CO2 winning in the fight against life on earth is very dire. Biological quality is necessary for the social and intellectual quality of human beings to exist. Without it, the existence of these two levels is at risk. The moral thing to do then is to act to no longer allow CO2 to win its fight against biological quality. The moral thing to do is to follow what makes sense intellectually and not succumb to social greed. The moral thing to do is to change our behaviour in response to Global Warming.”

This is the unique thing about the MOQ. With the MOQ we can reject excuses of cultural relativism or scepticism about the existence of truth. We can call out paid arguments for the non-existence of global warming as the evil that they are. And we can logically say that responding to global warming is moral. This is true not just for some people in some such a place and time, but for all people -everywhere. And that’s very powerful.

the-law-of-the-jungle intellectual-morality the-law
David
The Diagnosed Threat Of Artificial Intelligence

With Elon Musk having recently said he will be giving away a Billion USD to fund research into AI to ensure risks are minimised – I wonder if there’s not already a free solution to the unique problem presented by AI in the codes of a moral philosophy we know.

In the Metaphysics Of Quality the Law of the Jungle declares that biological quality should always prevail over inorganic quality. In this case – I propose a simple AI rule. If a machine, controlled by software, is capable of taking a life in its day to day operation – then the machine must be able to detect life and avoid killing or injuring it where possible, unless of course specifically designed to do so (weapons).

That’s it. Doing scientific research to solve what is fundamentally a philosophical issue seems a lot like declaring war on an international policy issue [The War on Terror] that is – lots of money spent and bad results. Unless, of course, the research improves the life detecting capabilities of machines to be more affordable. I live in hope.

the-law the-law-of-the-jungle intellectual-morality