[MD] are theism and mysticism mutually exclusive notions?

[Platt Holden]

> [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. 

When it came to social level politics, Pirsig left a hole big enough to 
drive a lot trucks through. Arlo and I happen to have widely 
differently configured trucks.

> [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.

If you'll re-read Chapter 11 of Lila I believe you'll see that biology 
did indeed "triumph over inorganic forces," such as gravity. There are 
many quotes about this, but perhaps one will suffice: "Biological 
evolution can be seen as a process by which weak Dynamic forces at a 
subatomic level discover stratagems for overcoming huge static 
inorganic forces at a superatomic level."  The key word here is 
"overcoming" as opposed to "emerging." 

> 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.

I think Pirsig would disagree that laws of nature are human inventions. 
Anyway, as you know there is still no agreement among mathematicians
and scientists about whether we discovered laws that were always 
there or whether we made them up. Pirsig comes down on the side of 
those who believe the laws have been there since forever..

> 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.

Yes, the function of all laws at all levels is to direct the behavior 
of the entities within a particular level so they can survive and cope 
with their particular environments. Every once in awhile, an entity 
refuses to conform and all hell breaks loose.
   
> 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. 

Having worked for an insurance company for many years, I know something
about mortality tables and such which substitutes certainty for the  
uncertainty faced by individuals. You can't predict when an individual  
will die, but you can predict that out of umpity-ump millions of 
individuals, so many will die at age 30, so many at 40, so many at 50, 
etc. I think it's called the law of large numbers. But, I'm not telling 
you anything you don't know . Whether the MOQ can be of help to those 
individuals unlucky enough to die young is doubtful, In fact, I doubt 
if the MOQ can help us cope with uncertainty any more than belief in a 
caring God. However, I will be following your ideas closely to see how
you tie uncertainty and morality together in a way that increases our 
understanding and explanatory power.  

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

I think it's a mistake to make DQ and change synonymous because then 
the obstacle you bring up cannot be overcome. Rather I see DQ as pure 
awareness which is good per se regardless of what one is aware of. In 
other words, through good times and bad, it's better to be aware than
not, especially considering the alternative. Since the urge to gain and 
maintain betterness happens to be the case, awareness seeks the better 
of all choices for its own sake. It seeks "the good dog." Or, as Sophie 
Tucker said, "I've been rich and I've been poor." Believe me, honey, 
rich is better." Or, as the Chinese leaders said to the people of China 
after Mao died, "To get rich is glorious." We've seen the consequences 
of that!  In other words, the DQ force is on the inside, not something 
"out there" to be measured or manipulated. 

But, I could be wrong.

Platt

.