[MD] subject / object logic

[Platt Holden]

Hi Ham, 

[Ham]
> Just to wrap up the morality issue...some points to ponder.
> 
> I said that morality infers choice.  You said:
> 
> > Morality has nothing to do with whether an entity can
> > "help" being moral or not.
> 
> Certainly a human entity can choose whether to be moral or not.  Isn't this
> what morality is all about?

That's part of what morality is all about. Pirsig has extended the usual 
meaning of morality to encompass other entities and processes in addition 
to human beings and their actions..

> You're asking me to believe that the vast
> uninhabited universe beyond earth is a moral system.  Who determines its
> moral status?  Who but man determines its value?

Who determines the vast universe beyond earth is uninhabited? Many would
disagree with that "determination." As for the other questions, my cat 
UTOE knows his own moral status and moral value. He knows what's
good and bad for him. His very survival depends on it. That he has no
choice in the matter, reacting to the environment by instinct, simply 
means his moral behavior, after eons of trial and error, has been pretty 
much stabilized.  

>  Can you name any positive
> value that is not realized as good for man?  (Don't you find that strange?)

How can a "positive value" not be good?  I must be missing the import of
your question. 

> > The moral choices that created the moral hierarchy were
> > made by certain building blocks of nature like particles, atoms,
> > cells, molecules, organisms and minds responding to the moral
> > force of Dynamic Quality.
> 
> The suggestion that particles, atoms, and molecules collaborated together
> to create the universe sounds to me like something from Disneyland. 

You've assumed "collaboration" of these entities. There was no 
collaboration any more than there is "collaboration" of all these entities 
 in Darwinian evolution..

> Wouldn't it be more plausible to consider this the work of a "central
> planner" --  shall we say, a Creator?  If intelligent human beings can't
> work together to stabilize civilization on this planet, how in the world
> could a disparate collection of insentient objects ever manage to create
> intelligent life forms?

Again, no bunch of insentient objects sitting around a table plotting how 
to design a living organism. Indeed, that would be Disneyland. For an
moral explanation of how life might have got its start, please read 
Chapter 11 of Lila. "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." (Lila, 
11) 
 
> We can quibble about terms, but this concept of morality stretches idealism
> far beyond anything Plato ever conceived.  Frankly, I find it incredulous.
> 
> No offense, but I suggest that you concentrate on discussing politics.

Well, you are not alone in your incredulity. But I guess there are some 
who would find your metaphysics incredulous, too. Personally I find the
neo-Darwinian view that mind emerged from no-mind incredulous. But luckily 
 
one's beliefs are not universal law.

As for politics, to me a philosophy that isn't  relevant to everyday life 
including politics isn't worth much. But a philosophy that helps people
come together in mutually beneficial arrangements, like free markets,  is 
worth a  lot.

With great respect and warm regards,
Platt