[MD] Is Morality innate in the cosmos?

[Ham Priday]

Hello Michael (Arlo and Scott mentioned) --


It's been a long time since we last chatted, and as I recall, it ended in
each of us going our separate ways.  I have no reason to believe this
exchange will have better results.

I think three types of people participate in this forum: 1) those who like
to express themselves and receive the approbation of those who hear them; 2)
those who will debate any issue and play devil's advocate to keep the debate
going; and 3) those with a genuine interest in philosophy who want to learn.
I try to satisfy the first two as a matter of courtesy, but I'll admit it's
the latter that I most enjoy talking to.

In response to SA's dissertation on scientific methodology, I had described
science and technology as beneficial in providing practical improvements,
while lacking the wisdom to direct the course of human progress.  I also
suggested that philosophical inquiry can incorporate and fulfill the
spiritual values of man without the mythos and dogma of religion.

You commented:
> 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).

Arlo has since injected:
> The mythos is the sum total of a cultural belief
> system, whether arranged around "Odin" or "Essence"
> or "Quality" makes no difference. The mythos is
> the analogy by which we describe experience.
> Ham's thesis, Pirsig's MOQ, are both part of the mythos,
> the more they are understood and accepted, the more a
> part of the mythos they are. The only thing
> "outside of" the mythos is insanity ...

Insanity seems to be on the rise here.  Scott also alluded to it in a recent
response to me:
> The eternal is real, but you're right that we utterly
> lack the ability to think in eternal terms.
> What I see this as implying is that there is something
> seriously wrong with us, for which the correct word is
> "insane".

I also told SA that metaphysical hypotheses are incapable of scientific
validation, and that I do not claim that mine is an absolute truth which
can't be "falsified".

You suggested:
> 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).

You've confused me, Michael.  I wasn't referring to Popper but to the
objectivist maxim that scientific theories are open to falsification, while
mythology and religion are not.  Suffice it to say, I make no claim that my
hypothesis is absolute truth (period).

Ham said:
> What I believe Essentialism offers that the MoQ does not
> is a rationale for meaning and purpose in the life-experience.

Michael:
> 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.

I have yet to hear a logical explanation for how "Some things are better
than others" can be a rationale for meaning and purpose.  My rationale can't
be articulated in a platitude like this.  I suggest that you refer to the
sections of my on-line thesis on Value and Freedom at
www.essentialism.net/mechanic.htm .

Michael:
> 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.

If you regard my pointing out a metaphysical inadequacy, like the above, as
an "attack", then you must be especially sensitive.  By "supernatural" I
refer to concepts having to do with reality beyond physical existence.  To
me Quality is neither physical nor supernatural; it is a valuistic attribute
of human feeling or sensibility.  Therefore it cannot be the source of
existence or a paradigm for creation.

I'm not an Orientalist, but my understanding is that the philosophies of Zen
and Buddhism are not considered "religions" in the sense of being supported
by authoritative dogma.

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

Essence is not anthropomorphic -- neither is it dynamic.  Creation is not a
singular event in space/time.  The Value of Essence (Quality?) is realized
by the subject (awareness) in the object (being) of experience.  In my
hypothesis, Creation is a constant manifestation of Essence negating
nothingness to divide awareness from beingness, thus actualizing man as the
"free agent" in value realization.

Arlo said:
> "Quality", "Essence", whatever analogy you use to
> describe "experience, life, reality, stuff, whatever" is always
> that, an analogy, an artistic creation, and part of the mythos,
> not separate.

Sorry, Arlo.  That's not good enough for me.  Essence is not an "analogy",
"myth",  or "semiotic signifier" (whatever that is).  It is nothing less
than ultimate reality.  The MoQ as outlined by Pirsig may indeed be an
"artistic creation", but it does not account for a transcendent source or
man's role in the universe.

Enjoy your debate, guys.

Regards,
Ham