[MD] Is Morality innate in the cosmos?

[Ham Priday]

SA

> The concepts of scientific method, deduction, and
> induction are just some ideas that philosophers, not
> scientists, have come up with to explain scientific
> inquiry.  Scientists do not inquire into what they
> themselves are doing (the strict logical positivist
> approach that some or most, if not all, scientists take
> would abhor any thought or feeling occurring in the
> scientific field of experimentation and fact
> collecting).

Please understand that I'm not attacking scientists or the objective
methodology by which they arrive at their conclusions.  We need to have
universally verifiable, objective information about our physical universe in
order to enhance our conditions for survival.  A "successful" scientific
theory is one that works.  All I'm trying to say about science and
technology is that it isn't capable of providing the wisdom needed to direct
the course of human progress.  For that we need a "belief system" based upon
fundamental precepts that transcend physical reality.  This is the purpose
of philosophical inquiry, which can incorporate the spiritual values of
mankind -- as religion does -- but without the mythos and dogma that have
been handed down as the "Will of the Almighty" since the dawn of
civilization.

I concede that metaphysical hypotheses, like the one I propose, are
incapable of scientific validation, and I do not claim that they are
absolute truths which can't be "falsified".  My Creation cosmology is
intuitively-based and conforms to the logic that has been applied to
metaphysical propositions by visionaries throughout the ages.  It is a
belief-system that makes sense to me, just as the MoQ Quality theory makes
sense to Pirsig's followers.  In fact, both philosophies have esthetic value
in common.  What I believe Essentialism offers that the MoQ does not is a
rationale for meaning and purpose in the life-experience.

Such concepts as the Big Bang, String Theory, Worm Holes, and Darwin's
'Evolution of the Species' don't invalidate my theory of Essence because
they are based on the objective reality of space/time, while I maintain that
objective reality is a creation of man's finite intellectual perspective
which changes from age to age.  That's why I think metaphysics deals with a
more fundamental reality than does scientific objectivism.  Yet, most people
look to Science for the answers (objective facts), oblivious of the insight
and wisdom of classical philosophers.  And contemporary philosophers, like
Pirsig, are still so deeply resentful of religious spirituality that they
reject any concept that they see as tainted by the "supernatural" or that
presupposes a Creator.  This is why most of the philosophers I've cited in
my thesis are pre-20th century, while some of the most profound concepts are
to be found in the writings of medieval theologians like Eckhart and Cusa,
as well as the neo-Platonists.

I still hope to see what questions you may have concerning my thesis.  I
always welcome questions and comments -- including criticisms.  The more
opportunity I have to respond to challenges, the better I become at
communicating ideas.  (Which is one of my reasons for staying on here.)

Essentially yours,
Ham