[MD] are theism and mysticism mutually exclusive notions?

[Case]

[Platt]
First of all, the MOQ takes much of the uncertainty out of morality. At
least, that's the claim -- a morality based on reason. 

[Case]
Well, if that the case things aren't going very well are they? If reason and
the MoQ accomplished this you and Arlo would be left talking about the
weather. 

[Platt]
Second, morality "in the sense of a moral code" extends far beyond
"interpersonal interactions" in the MOQ, as Pirsig describes:

"What the evolutionary structure of the Metaphysics of Quality shows is 
that there is not just one moral system. There are many. In the 
Metaphysics of Quality there's the morality called the "laws of 
nature," by which inorganic patterns triumph over chaos; there is a 
morality called the law of the jungle" where biology triumphs over the 
inorganic forces of starvation and death; there's a morality where 
social patterns triumph over biology, "the law"; and there is an 
intellectual morality, which is still struggling in its attempts to 
control society. Each of these sets of moral codes is no more related 
to the other than novels are to flip-flops." (Lila, 13)

To me this simply means that from the lowliest particle to the highest
cosmological theory, moral codes rule. The choices made in the face of 
uncertainty are inevitably moral choices. It's not that uncertainty 
underlies everything.  It's that morality does  That's the message of 
the MOQ -- a message SOM science ignores because morality is beyond 
anything objectively measurable and thus something best left to pastors 
and priests.  


[Case]
I think you are putting the wrong spin on this quote. Take the statement,
"inorganic patterns triumph over chaos" this does not mean that subatomic
particles are building motes and catapults to fend of the barbarian hordes.
It means that we can see patterns in nature. We observe regularity.
Similarly biology does not triumph over inorganic forces it exists because
of them. One level emerges from the others.

The important piece I think you are missing is: "Each of these sets of moral
codes is no more related to the other than novels are to flip-flops." Pirsig
is not changing the law of nature. If you ask me what is similar between the
laws of physics and the laws of human morality, I would say that both are
human inventions. The laws of physics are developed and have been hugely
successful in helping us reduce uncertainty about the natural world and out
place in it. From houses to telescopes science gives us physical and mental
tools for understanding the world and or place in it. Human cultures and
religions serve this same function. We know from experiments on animals and
from watching the evening news that uncertainty and rapid change in the
environment produce discomfort even panic. If it persists long enough humans
at least become superstitious even ritualistic.

While physics and the law are different in their particulars they serve the
same function. In a sense they also confront change and survival that is
dynamic and static quality.

It is true that uncertainty has been around forever but until the first part
of the last century the goal of most human enterprises was to reduce or
eliminate it. In the Newtonian era many thought this had been accomplished.
What we seem to have learned more recently is that this is simple not
possible. Fortunately we have also developed new tools for studying the
problem of uncertainty, statistics and probability theory, computers that
can calculate iterative processes in a few minutes that would have taken
centuries to work out by hand.

I think that the MoQ can provide a metaphysical underpinning for seeing how
uncertainty works, how it affects us, why we do what we do in response to
it. Just as determinism grew out of Newton and moral relativity grew out of
Einstein I see a need for us to get a better grip on uncertainty as it is
coming to be understood. 

In many ways because it is so old and because it is so built into our very
nature, uncertainty is the water in our fishbowl. A couple of times you have
asked me questions that have made me give answers that I found surprising.
The idea that entire industries like gambling, insurance, the stock
market... are constructed to deal specifically with uncertainty really
shocked me. In fact the more I thought about it the harder it was for me to
think of anything that we do that is not tied to our need to predict and
control our environment and how it affects us. And yet it seems if you look
for a systematic way of understanding this beyond the specifics of
particular fields and disciplines what we get is mostly folklore. I think
the MoQ have the potential to tie this stuff together. 

The biggest obstacle that I see in the path of this is the idea that DQ is
good.