[MD] Is Morality innate in the cosmos?

[Ham Priday]

Hey SA --


> I also do not believe in a strict non-feeling science is
> the one and only key to this universe, because at
> times I feel the cold in winter.  When I took a
> philosophy of science course in the university
> Kuhn came up because philosophers today stick
> with logical positivism to understand scientific
> inquiry only because it seems to be the best paradigm.

What was your major at the university?  I hate to admit that mine was
Biology with a Chemistry minor.  (At the time I thought I had what it took
to go into medicine.  As it turned out, I barely had the brainpower to pass
Organic!)  Ursinus College didn't offer Philosophy of Science, but I took
History of Western Philosophy, Logic, and a couple of Psychology courses as
electives.

Incidentally -- and this may seem like nit-picking -- I wouldn't use
"paradigm" as a substitute for methodology.  A paradigm is an analogical
scenario, or scheme, used to express some kind of working system.  Pirsig's
Quality thesis and my Creation hypothesis, for example, are paradigms.  The
objective approach to knowledge, sometimes described as "investigate -
confirm - validate", is the working regimen actually followed by scientists
in exploring the universe.  A scientific theory must be demonstrated to hold
up under all conditions; otherwise, it has to be modified or replaced by an
alternate theory.  Not so, a paradigm.

> Yet, a lot of anomalies are accumulating in the field
> of philosophy of science, and there is a lot of thinking
> going on to redefine how scientists do science.
> The old quantum physics experiment about the observer
> influencing the experiment and social ideas creeping into
> the machine/experiment is bringing up a lot of questions
> as to how, as I said, scientists are really doing science.
> science.  With all of these anomalies creeping into
> awareness more and more to the point we can no longer
> push them aside and must fit them into our world view,
> any thesis, I would think, (especially ones that claim
> universality) would help explain not just how science
> is done, but how life is done by all humankind, birds,
> cougars, etc.

This is true.  However, I don't think it would be fair to criticize the
scientist for these anomalies.  After all, the parameters of science also
have their limitations, even though the limits are continually being
extended with each passing century

> you have a quote in your thesis by Stanford University
> physicist Andrei Linde (which ..."takes Wheeler's idea
> to the next level"), "I cannot imagine a consistent theory
> of everything that ignores consciousness," said Linde.
> You may explain later in your thesis, but what about habit,
> unconsciousness, and/or involuntary events such as
> digestion?  Where do they fit?

Well, this section isn't really about consciousness; it's about how we
perceive the universe.  I wanted to establish the fact that philosophers are
not the only thinkers who understand that what we call reality is an
experience defined by the intellect rather than by Nature.  Incidentally,
Pirsig  agrees with that principle; remember, he said Experience=Reality.
Habits, unconsciousness, and involuntary bodily functions are attributes of
the organic or neurological "beingness" of an individual.  As such, I don't
see them as relevant to the issue of subjective cognition.

One additional caveat: You're going to see resistance to my theory in
responses from Arlo, Scott, and others here.  I'm a renegade in this forum,
and they talk a different language.  They also think I'm out to "attack"
Pirsig and denounce his philosophy.  The truth is, I admire what Pirsig has
achieved, and am basically in agreement with his concept of an esthetic
reality.  However, I do think there are some glaring omissions in his
theory, including his unwillingness to explain the cause of existence and
its purpose or meaning, particularly with regard to man's place in the
universe.  As a philosophy, I think the MoQ interpreted between the lines of
a novel is inadequate without a formal metaphysical thesis.

Good questions.  Keep 'em coming!

Essentially yours,
Ham