[MD] Is Morality innate in the cosmos?

[Ham Priday]

Arlo --

On 2/10 you said to SA [Spiritual Adirondack]:


> My feeling is this, without even getting into whether
> there is or is not an Absolute (whether you call it God,
> Quality or Essence), we can never know it in any way
> other than through analogy. Ham's Essentialism is an
> analogy. The Koran is an analogy. The MOQ is an
> analogy. The bible is an analogy.  Etc.

Is Philosophy an analogy?  If so, does that mean there is no reality, that
all experience can be reduced to analogue?

It seems to me that the question as to whether there is or is not an
Absolute is fundamental to philosophical discourse.  I haven't seen many
philosophers willing to dismiss this question.  If there is no reality,
where does our capacity to construct analogues come from?   What purpose do
they serve, other than to create a "virtual reality" in which we are all
insanely involved?

What you have defined for SA is nihilism, pure and simple.

> DQ is the force "outside the mythos" that provides
> regeneration and destruction for the mythos.

If the MoQ is an analogy, as you stated above, then DQ is an analogy also.
How, then, can you say that DQ is the force "outside the mythos"?

> Witness Ham's contention that the only right way to
> describe "whatever" is through HIS Essentialism.

When did I ever say that?

> Ham does not make the case that Essentialism provides a
> more powerful metaphor than the MOQ for understanding
> "whatever", he makes the case that Essentialism is RIGHT
> and the MOQ is WRONG, for all people, at all times,
> in all cultures.

When did I ever say that??

> Ham may think he has uncovered The One True God,
> and is presenting The One True Path, but do not be duped,
> it may very well be a powerful metaphor, indeed, it may very
> well more powerful for him (and others) than the MOQ.
> But, it will always be a metaphor.

This sounds almost desperate, Arlo.  I suppose I should be flattered to see
my thesis characterized in such grandiose terms, but your tone worries me.
Assuming that you're serious in this caveat, let me assure you that I have
no intention to displace Mr. Pirsig's MoQ with Essentialism, even if that
were possible.  I can't even imagine how you arrived at that idea.

As I stated before, I seek only to displace nihilism, wherever I spot it.
As for the MoQ, I would like nothing better than to resolve the speculation
and metaphysical inadequacies that surround this theory and see it achieve
the academic recognition it deserves.

Sincere regards,
Ham