[MD] Is Morality innate in the cosmos?

[Heather Perella]

Arlo and Ham,

    First Arlo, but Ham read as well:  I definitely
liked how you discussed on Fri Feb 10 20:31:04 PST
2006.  You layed out your point with tremendous
clarity.  I understand where you are coming from.  I
agree with you... I think :-).  I am still reading
Ham's thesis.  I don't know when I will get to finish
it since I am typing this up before I leave for work. 
What a goal of mine is, is to understand where you,
Scott, Platt, and Ham are coming from on each point of
discussion.  So far I have not found anything to
disagree with, yet, at times when I read the
discussions between Ham and you I find disagreement. 
Maybe, from what I gather so far, is Ham is trying to
put a certain point across that is open to other
discussions, but at times, Ham's point may seem to be
exclusive rather than inclusive.  Yet, I think Ham's
thesis is an inclusive understanding.  I am not yet
half-way through his thesis, but so far he is trying
to explain a background to subjective and objective as
Essence.  The same that Pirsig used Quality.  Now I do
see Ham is using Essence and Pirsig - Quality, there
might be a difference, but I am not there yet in my
understanding.  

     Secondly Ham, but Arlo read as well:  Your recent
post was very clear.  I definitely understand what you
are saying now about the line and how we negate the
Absolute into Difference with our "line drawing".  So
one might say when tracing a tree, don't stop at the
trunk continue tracing across into the dirt to the
next tree, but don't stop, keep tracing onward around
the earth, but don't stop, keep tracing into the sky
around the stars, but don't stop, include our
consciousness, but don't stop because as Arlo said in
his most recent post, "Philosophy is the construction
of analogies to explain "it". That does not mean there
is no "it", it just means that the only way we can
ever know "it" is through analogy.  All human coded
representations of "it" are analogies." and also Cusa
said (this is the quote of Cusa's point of view from
your (Hams') recent post), "I think Cusa came as close
to realizing this as anyone since his time.  He knew
it couldn't be expressed in a definition, and that it
certainly was incapable of description."
     
     I see a similarity in discussion here.  I may be
trying to push together something that cannot be
pushed together, What do both of you think?  On this
train of thought is there a similarity?

Ham, in your recent posting you said:  "I'm sure that
scientists are sometimes driven to particular research
projects for personal reasons, by persuasion of
others, or out of plain old curiosity.  And everybody
has some kind of world view (weltenshauung).  But that
doesn't change the fact that experimental results must
be replicable and subject to confirmation."  Your
right, but  what is the "it" of their experimental
results.  What theory, paradigm, or worldview are they
looking through that may draw lines of distinction
through their resulting "it(s)".  I definitely do
agree with you, that scientists are seeing an "it" in
their results, and the replicated results via
experimentation are concretely touching upon
something.  Newton was right.  Einstein was right,
too.  Yet, Newton was dropped and replaced with
Einstein in the field of astronomy.  Why, since they
both work?  Einstein does produce more accurate
results.  Science, in this sense, has become more
accurate.  Without Einstein we wouldn't have the
accurate and workable GPS systems, and though I don't
have one, I think they are pretty neat.  Philosophy
does come from a different angle at understanding the
"it".  As you have said, I think, they each have
something to offer.

SA

   

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com