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

[Platt Holden]

Hi Ham, 
 
[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.

[Ham} 
> Right and wrong are intellectual judgments based on the contingencies
> evaluated. 

I thought you said  that morality was based on aesthetic sensibilities.
Now it's an intellectual judgment. So is it one, or the other, or both? If it's 
intellectual, what are its premises?

> 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.

"My" universal principle of might makes right? When did I espouse that as my 
universal moral principle? Do you not see any moral difference between wolves 
and men? I certainly do.

> > 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.

What is the difference between the scientific way of establishing truth and the 
"objective validation" way? 

> 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.

Nor can  those things be verified by your "objective validation" unless you 
know of a method of reading minds. Either that or I don't understand "objective 
validation."

> [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.

He did? When did he say that? 

 > > 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.

How do you know? Can you "objectively validate" that a blade of grass has no 
awareness? 
 
> > "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.

Ah, so it's the cognoscenti who decide what theories are right or wrong? I 
would hate to recount all the times they've been wrong beginning with the 
Greeks.

> > I wish you'd convince Hamas of the "full autonomy of individual Freedom."
 
> Hamas has dramatically demonstrated its knowledge of this fact.
 
How so? By pledging to kill Jews? You must know something I don't. But I'm 
willing to learn. 

Morally yours,
Platt