[MD] Is Morality innate in the cosmos?

[Ham Priday]

Morning SA --


> 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.

That's a fair characterization.  My overall objective is to get my
Philosophy of Essence across, but it's usually necessary here to explain it
in the context of the MoQ.  So I find myself tailoring my responses to the
specific mindset or belief-system of the person I'm talking to.   You are a
good "test case" for me; you understand what Pirsig meant by Quality, but
you haven't yet been indoctrinated to the DQ/SQ hierarchy developed in LILA.
This was exactly my position when I joined this forum.  So I have an
opportunity with you to expound Essentialism as simply as I can without
resorting to the MoQ analogies.

> 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." ...
>
> 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?

The constuction of analogies is a tool or "tactic" of philosophy but not its
essence, just as language is a tool of communication but not an idea or
concept.  Some people here are just analyzing tactics and techniques used by
various philosophers, rather than the central concepts they were
postulating.  This is what Pirsig called 'philosophology'.  While it is true
that we can't describe the Absolute in the same way that we describe, say,
an elephant, it is possible to construct a theory of the Absolute that will
account for the things we can describe, like elephants, man, evolution and
value.

> 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.

What's a GPS system?  Is it the automatic navigational device now being
tested in cars?

(From your 2/13 post):
> Is this 'not-other' also similar to what has been used in
> Zen Buddhism and maybe Asian culture for some time
> now, which is known as 'Mu'?  I see some similarities,
> but I don't know if I am willing to outrightly state they
> are exactly the same.

I don't know either.  To me, most Oriental philosophy is aimed at developing
a psychological "acceptance" of reality (fate?) rather than attempting to
explain or define it metaphysically.  Such expressions as "Mu" and "Oom" are
either self-hypnotic devices intended to induce an attitude of tranquility
or a sign from the Zen Master that the question asked has no finite
equivalent (i.e., cannot be answered).  Koans are another such device; they
posit a riddle that has no solution, presumably to demonstrate that
metaphysical questions are not worth worrying about.  I don't subscribe to
this kind of resignation which, to me, is a cop-out.  To answer your
question, I see "Mu" as the Eastern equivalent of the current Western
expression "duh".

Good luck with the second half of my thesis and whatever insights you'll
find in LILA.

Essentially yours,
Ham