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

[Ham Priday]

 Hi Platt -- 

> 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.

Right and wrong are intellectual judgments based on the contingencies
evaluated.  If the wolf
seizing and devouring the goat is not wrong by your universal principle
('might makes right'),
then neither was Hitler or Pol Pot.

> 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?

Not Science per se, but objective validation that is universally
acknowledged.
You're right: Essence will never by scientifically verified.  But then,
neither will your proprietary awareness, your joys and sorrows, your
passions and aspirations, your disdain for injustice.

[Ham]:
> 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.
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.

[Platt]:
> How can any of that be measured in the laboratory and verified?

Again, I'm not saying that it can.  Even Pirsig admitted that his Quality
was not capable of objective validation.  It's a theory -- a metaphysical
hypothesis.  So what's your beef?

> 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."

An amoeba, like a leukophyte or blade of grass, reacts to external stimuli.
This is not "knowledge" or awareness, Platt.  You confuse behavior with
conscious sensibility.

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

You had best do so if you want your theory to be recognized by the
cognoscenti.

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

Hamas has dramatically demonstrated its knowledge of this fact.


Essentially,
Ham