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

[Platt Holden]

Hi Ham,  

> > 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.

You mean to tell me that Islam's moral system that approves of beheading
infidels on television isn't objectively worse than the moral system of the West where
individual rights are given constitutional protections? Or that the Communist 
justice system that sent political dissidents to Siberian gulags is objectively 
the moral equivalent of the American justice system?  Or that "esthetic 
sensibility" led the Nazis and Pol Pot to slaughter millions? It's hard for me 
to understand why you who esteem reason would believe it's useless in 
determining right from wrong.    

> 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.

You seem to say on one hand that only science can be called upon to establish 
truth. On the other hand you ask us to believe in an Essence which science 
cannot verify. What gives? 

> 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.

How can any of that be measured in the laboratory and verified?
 
> > 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 thought I answered. Yes, I accept the behavior of atoms and animals as a 
function of intelligent design, as well as the behavior of man with his greater 
freedom of choice. The principle of rightness or betterness designed all 
morality, physical and cultural, from the beginning, Morality--that some things 
are better than others -- is not restricted or limited to human societies. Even 
an amoeba knows when "It's better here." 

> 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?

Yes. I don't believe in the scientific theory of "Oops."
 
> [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.

"Lila" expresses Pirsig's metaphysics just as "Atlas Shrigged" expresses 
Rand's. You don't have to follow static academic protocols to write a  
metaphysics.

> 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.

I wish you'd convince Hamas of the "full autonomy of individual Freedom."

Morally yours,
Platt