[MD] Probability

[Ham Priday]

Case --


[Ham]:
> For relative truths, how about 2 + 2 = 4; or all animals
> are organisms; or, for any right-angled triangle, the
> square of the hypotenuse is equal to the sum of the
> squares of the other two sides; or no two things can
> occupy the same space at the same time?
> Absolute truth presupposes an Absolute which
> contains no relative truths.  Therefore, if you deny the
> Absolute, you deny absolute truth.

[Case]:
> Most of those are true by definition which ruled them out.

I think you'll find that all truths are "true by definition."  Can you
suggest one that isn't?

[Case]:
> This is where we butt heads, of course.  I see no use
> in assigning purpose to the inanimate world nor any role
> for consciousness outside of organic beings.  To the
> extent that Pirsig invokes purpose of this sort I have been
> highly critical.  His chapter on evolution is particularly
> rank in this regard.

Agreed.  But Pirsig wanted to market his thesis as a "moralistic"
philosophy, and that's why we have LILA.  Teleology or Morality could not be
subjective without violating the metaphysics outlined in his SODV paper.  So
he had to attribute Purpose to Reality itself, and it's generally understood
as an SOM derivative of Dynamic Quality.

[Case]:
> But I am curious about why you think [an absolute source]
> is important and why you don't just say what it is without
> qualification, repetition or making up new words. I used to
> explain Quantum physics to my kids on the way to preschool.
> If you can not state things in terms that a child can understand,
> how do you expect anyone to understand?  When you over
> simplify you sacrifice precision but you gain clarity.  Bohr
> said the two were complementary.  Seems like a fair trade to me.

I never went to preschool, but if kids are learning Quantum Physics there,
I'll have to revise my appraisal of America's educational system.  I assume
that to "say what it is without making up new words" is an admonishment to
use the term "God" in place of Essence.  I've addressed that question
before, and have also answered it in the 'FAXs sheet' on my website.  The
short answer is that, except for Cusa's "not-other", I haven't seen a
theological definition for God that could be considered equivalent to
Essence.  Considering the linguistic confusion surrounding Pirsig's
writings, I'm not sure that sacrificing precision for clarity is such a good
idea.

 [Case]:
> If its claims are not verifiable why are they worth
> considering?  If the Absolute is inaccessible then
> why bother with it?  If it doesn't make you feel better
> and it doesn't explain anything in the world of matter
> or ideas how does it differ from a leprechaun?

I find it incredulous that you consider nothing worth considering that isn't
verifiable.  I assume that, like most of us, you read books, listen to
music, watch movies, and enjoy sports or other diversions.  Can you "verify"
the pleasure or value these activities bring you?  As for the fact that
absolute knowledge is inaccessible, this doesn't seem to have discouraged
the scientists who continue to explore, investigate, and theorize.  Why
should a philosopher whose primary interest is the unknown be deterred by
that fact?  Also, while making people "feel better" may be the aim of
religion, psychology, and the arts, I don't see it as the major thrust of
philosophy which, as I'm sure you know, is the pursuit of wisdom through the
development of concepts that express fundamental beliefs.

Essentially yours,
Ham