[MD] Where have all the values gone?

[Platt Holden]

Hi Ham, 
 
>  Hey, Platt --
> 
> I guess reverting to the original subject heading got my note screened
> out
> of your system.    Anyway, since you haven't responded to my reply to
> your
> 1/11 message, I'm sending it again under your heading.  (By the way,
> you
> must know that I'm totally empathetic with your lament over society's
> lost
> values.)

I've responded to your reply of 1/11 twice now and both times they failed to
penetrate the vicissitudes of the Web. This necessarily will be an
abbreviated version, for which I apologize in advance.

Ham:
>  This is why I continue to push for definitions that can be
> universally understood.  It becomes difficult, of course, when an
> author
> refuses to define what he means by a word like Quality because
> "everybody
> knows what it is".

I don't think we need to define words that refer to universal experiences,
like fear, hunger, love, beauty and quality.

Ham:
> To date,
> having
> reviewed the MoQ discussions, Pirsig's SODV paper, and McWatt's
> doctoral
> thesis, I'm not convinced that the MoQ's Quality is a transcendent
> reality
> or a derivative thereof.  If I'm wrong, perhaps someone will take me in
> tow
> and explain why.

Pirsig explains the transcendent reality of quality by simply pointing out
that we cannot imagine a world without it. His actual words were: "You
cannot conceive of or live in a world in which nothing is better than
anything else."  

Ham:
> I agree with your sentiments.  But while Pirsig may be exemplary in his
> use
> of the English language, his novels are hardly a model of metaphysical
> exposition.

Here I must disagree. I find his "model" new, refreshing and appealing by 
its commitment to and use of plain English.

Ham:
> Absolute principles are capable of being violated but not invalidated.

I always thought that once an absolute principle was violated, it was
invalidated.
 
Ham:
> I believe there is an order to existence and a teleology by which it
> moves
> toward certain ends.  My objection to this being called "morality" is
> the
> common understanding (your cause?) of morality to mean human behavior.
> Would you accept the idea that the behavior of atoms and animals is
> a function of "intelligent design"?
> 
> That would of course imply a Designer.
> Man is the "designer" of cultural morality.
> Who or what would you say is the designer of physical morality??
 
I have ano open mind about the existence of an intelligent designer. Like
you I believe there are absolute principles that guide evolution toward
betterness. But where those principles came from I cannot say. 

Hope this gets through.

Best regards,
Platt


-------------------------------------------------
This mail sent through IMP: http://horde.org/imp/