[MD] subject/object: pragmatism

[Ham Priday]

Greetings, Platt --


> I agree with you that the "Big Bang is a copout that
> doesn't explain anything." In fact, the assertion that
> "chance" explains anything is equally absurd.
> It's part and parcel of the metaphysics of "oops."
 >
> "Science doesn't have an answer to what led to the Big Bang."
> What's even more telling, they don't have an answer to "why"
> there was a Big Bang.
>
> Mr. Pirsig put this all into perspective in the following quote
> from Lila:
>
> "...Should reality be something that only a handful of the world's
> most advanced physicists understand? ...Should reality be
> expressible only in symbols that require university-level mathematics
> to manipulate?  Should it be something that changes from year to
> year as new scientific theories are formulated?  Should it be
> something about which different schools of physics can quarrel
> for years with no firm resolution on either side?  If this is so then
> how is it fair to imprison a person in a mental hospital for life
> with no trial and no jury and no parole for 'failing to understand
> reality'? "

While I can empathize with Pirsig's protest, especially knowing some of his 
personal history, I believe there is another side to his argument.

Man is not designed to fathom the truth of his existence.  His finite 
intellect is inadequate to deal with the absolute.  Nor is it necessary that 
he do so, since most people can live out their lives blissfully unaware that 
there may be a reason for their existence.  Yet, because there is implanted 
in every cognizant individual the quest for understanding, we all arrive at 
some notion of what reality is about.  Metaphysics is for those seriously 
concerned with the existential enigma.  For the less intellectual among us, 
simple platitudes are sufficient guidelines for a contented life; others 
bind themselves to the canonic law or the theories of science, while some 
refuse to believe anything that isn't substantiated by empirical proof.

I'm inclined to agree with Eckhart's observation that "within itself the 
soul is free, innocent of all instrumentalities and ideas."  If man did not 
enter the world an innocent creature - if his knowledge were unlimited - he 
would not be free to shape his reality or realize its values.  Consider the 
alternative.  If you were suddenly granted the key to all knowledge, 
including the origin, meaning and destiny of your life, would it be a gift 
or a curse?  Would you be content with the prospect of never having to make 
a choice, feel surprise, or ponder an unknown fate?  Or would absolute 
wisdom reduce your life-experience to that of a robot running its prescribed 
course under the control of an external source or cause-and-effect 
probability?  I've stated in my thesis that "the inscrutability of life's 
meaning confirms the teleology of our experienced world."

If, as I believe, the purpose of cognizant life is to "make value aware", it 
is only logical that the individual subject should be an autonomous agent 
"outside the loop", as it were, equipped to experience reality in accordance 
with his own value sensibilities, guided by his unique perspective, free of 
the restrictions that knowledge "beyond the experience" would impose on his 
attitudes and behavior.

So, with due respect to Mr. Pirsig in his quandary, I contend that only by 
confronting the problems of metaphysics head-on can we rise above the 
paradox of differentiated existence and come to an intellectual 
understanding of our role in the cosmos.  While some will call this 
"theological nonsense" or "supernaturalism", my contention is that ultimate 
reality will always be The Unknown to man.  You can skirt around it, 
convince yourself that it's a fantasy, or try to explain it.  One thing is 
certain: whether you are concerned with ultimate reality or not, reality is 
ultimately concerned with you.

Thanks for giving me the benefit of the doubt, Platt.

Essentially yours,
Ham