[MD] Is Morality innate in the cosmos?

[Michael Hamilton]

Hello Ham,

In your recent post, you invited questions and comments. Several of
your points interested me, so I thought I'd oblige.

> 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 agree with this (although I wouldn't be so hard on mythos: myths and
stories can be of great value when not taken literally - but this is a
minor quibble).

> 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".

(Just another slight quibble: if, in stating that your hypothesis does
not fall within the remit of scientific inquiry, you are referring to
Popper's  "falisificationist" definition of scientific hypotheses,
then this ought to read "I do not claim that they _can_ be falsified",
because Popper would call your hypothesis non-scientific on the
grounds that it can _not_ conceivably be experimentally tested and
thereby falsified (or not). And presumably you wouldn't feel troubled
by this. Anyway, that's enough pedantry from me.)

> 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.

I believe this is an unfair criticism, as Quality is practically
synonymous with meaning and purpose. Still, I'd be interested to hear
your rationale.

> 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.

This caught my eye - I completely agree.

> 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.

I still don't understand the attacks of this sort which you level upon
Pirsig. I very much doubt that Pirsig is "deeply resentful of
religious spirituality". Is Zen not a spiritual religion? I suppose I
agree that the MOQ is not "supernatural", although it might help if
you clarified what you mean by this word.

In the MOQ, there is a Creator, but it is not anthropomorphic. It is
Dynamic Quality.

> 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.

Regards,
Mike