[MD] Ham unlike you I will not create false idols

[Ham Priday]

Hi Platt --


> The only thing I found hard to resolve was your rightful judgment
> that some things are better than others with your continued beating
> of the drums for the legitimacy of  relative morality, i.e., that
> morally speaking , no culture is better than any other.

I can accept the idea that "some things are better than others" as a gage to
judging moral behavior.  I cannot accept it as a philosophy.  Evaluation of
moral conduct, just like evaluating Rachmaninoff vs. Mozart, is a subjective
call.  The fact that you and I believe Western culture has a better moral
system than Islamic culture is a value judgment.  Value judgments don't
"make it so"; they only express a subjective belief based on our esthetic
sensibilities.

There's a difference between subjective and objective values.  If I claim
that a book in my hands weighs 2 lbs, or that light travels at 186,355
miles/second, these values can be universally verified.   No so with
subjective values like esthetics and morality.  To say you know that Western
morality is better than that of that of the Arabs is like saying you know
the color blue is better than the color green.  The fact that blue happens
to be more pleasing to you is the same as saying that you are more
comfortable with Western morality.  It's an expression of your feelings, not
a universally verifiable principle.

Again, I state my case that there is a discriminative capacity innate in
human beings that makes such choices proprietary to the individual.  It is
the essential purpose of this anthropocentric existence.  This
individualization of awareness and everything it experiences can be
explained as a function of this valuistic design.  We were "meant" to be
individual, separated from beingness, innocent of the absolute, and
autonomous in our freedom to choose.  That, my dear friend, is the
"morality" of Essentialism in (another) nutshell.

> I don't recall reading the phrase, "uncreated Creator" which I think
> would have stuck in my head. That phrase reminds me of the cop out
> by science in explaining the Big Bang. To them, every event has a
> cause except the one that started the chain of causation rolling.
> Then they turn around and tell us anyone who believes in a Creator
> is a fool. Methinks they speak with forked tongue.

I may have used the phrase elsewhere in my notes to you.  However, I did
offer a "Point A to Z" analogy, showing that it applies only to a space/time
universe and that an absolute source would not be subject to these
limitations.  I had also asked you back on 1/11 this question, which you
have not answered:

> Would you accept the behavior of atoms and animals as 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 assume from your assessment (above) of the Big Bang theory that you
believe in a Creator, and also seem to believe that the Creator designed
morality into the physical world.  Is that your view?

[Platt]:
> Finally, with your continued emphasis on the value of values, you are
> practically in the same bed with our man Pirsig. (No sexual innuendo
intended).
> If I could just get you to entertain the idea that morality and values are
so
> close in meaning that they are interchangeable in expressing choice, we'd
all
> be in the same bed together.

This "sharing of the big bed" is magnanimous on your part but, I think,
false philosophology.
Pirsig avoided further work on an epistemology (metaphysical thesis)
subsequent to
his SODV paper, which leaves his belief in a primary source questionable.
My personal opinion is that he wished to identify his "moralistic"
philosophy with Science, and felt that comments bearing on the
"supernatural" would identify him with the theists (to the detriment of his
fame as a postmodernist).  He has as much said this in his note to me, and
in various Lila passages.  So we really don't know what his actual "belief
system" is, and are not likely ever to know.

I've always thought that we share much in common, both philosophically and
politically, Platt.  This hang-up on universal morality is mostly a semantic
problem which I think can be resolved by your acceptance of the full
autonomy of individual Freedom.  If you want to pursue this issue, please be
my guest.

Glad you liked the essay.

Essentially yours,
Ham