[MD] Is Morality innate in the cosmos?

[Michael Hamilton]

Ham,

> 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.

Maybe so. Our different perspectives have so far led to our
conversations ending rather quickly. However, as I recall, we've found
occasional points of agreement, and your recent post included two more
such points: that philosophy can incorporate the spiritual values of
humankind, and that objectivity is a creation of humankind's
perspective, which changes from age to age. This leads me to hope that
we might be able to have a productive conversation, although it seems
that I'm going to have to steer around this tricky sticking point,
namely the metaphorical nature of language and consequently of all
thought, including philosophy.

> 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.

Well, I do have a genuine interest in learning about your philosophy
and the philosophy of others. Like many people, I'm looking for
answers. Naturally, though, I also enjoy expressing my beliefs, and
it's always good to find agreement from others. I don't think this is
something to be frowned at, and I don't think that 1 and 3 on your
list need to be mutually exclusive.

<snip the stuff about mythos and insanity, for now at least>

> 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).

Okay, I have no disagreement here. I believe the maxim does originate
with Popper, but in any case, you understand it. Sorry for
nit-picking.

> 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.

There is a great deal more to Quality than its common-sense
connotation of "some things are better than others", otherwise Pirsig
wouldn't have needed to write two books. Among other things, the MOQ
rescues meaning and purpose from the vague and arbitrary status that
they hold in materialist and nihilist worldviews, by replacing matter
as a first principle with the valuation/experience that is
consciousness. In other words, the MOQ subsumes
meaningless/purposeless scientific reality under
meaningful/purpose-laden spiritual reality (Quality).

It isn't just that "some things are better than others" - it's that
this sense of value (which is a sense of meaning) pervades reality,
and hasn't merely been tacked-on to a mechanistic world by human
beings as some kind of decorative ornament.

> 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 .

Will do.

> 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.

Sorry to have to ask another question, but by "physical existence", do
you mean matter? Or, by "beyond physical existence", do you mean
beyond experience of any kind?

> 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.

And is "valuistic atrribute of human feeling or sensibility" roughly
equivalent to a "tack-on" or "decorative ornament", limited
exclusively to human beings?

> 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.

I'm no expert either, but Buddhism is divided into various schools of
thought, although as you indicate, there is less emphasis upon
authority and dogma than in Western religions. In any case, I doubt
that Pirsig "deeply resents" spirituality in any religion, be it Zen,
Christianity, or any other. Like you, the MOQ shows respect for the
more positive aspects of religion (namely, spirituality).

> 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.

I follow you so far (and I thoroughly agree with creation not being 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.

This is where you lose me. I don't yet understand your terminology.
Could you exemplify, or expand upon, what you mean by "the object
(being) of awareness"?

Regards,
Mike