[MD] subject/object: pragmatism

[Platt Holden]

> [Platt]
> I think we see Dynamic Quality differently. To me it's a moral force, like
> other forms of energy, that people respond to. You seem to see it as a
> capacity for change that some static patterns, not necessarily people,
> possess. Morality (value) doesn't enter into your view. Is that correct?
> 
> [Krimel]
> I think we are closer than you might think. You are correct that I do not
> see morality as having some independent existence. Nor do I see it as energy
> in a physicalist sense. Rather I think it is our response to DQ. By this I
> mean a biological response, programmed into us by evolution. We enter the
> world equipped to recognize things that are good for us and things that are
> bad. We are, even into adulthood, guided by these emotional reactions to
> events around us. As I have said many times, morality and purpose are not
> properties of nature there are properties of us. As you have on occasion
> point out residing in us makes them properties of nature but I would say not
> in a particularly cosmic sense.

[Platt]
Where you and I (and Pirsig) appear to depart is believing morality is in 
nature "in the cosmic sense."  From Pirsig:

"It says that even at the most fundamental level of the universe, static 
patterns of value and moral judgment are identical. The "Laws of Nature" 
are moral laws." (Lila, 12) 

[Krimel]
> The real issue is that while you do not see science as suggesting any
> particular view of morality, I do. For me at least the morality is evolution
> and evolutionary. Our moral imperative is to rear our young and make the
> world a better place for those who come after us. I would suggest that few
> societies have ever existed or at least long endured in defiance of this
> moral precept. 

[Platt]
You seem to the exception to what most scientists say, namely, that the 
universe (which I presume includes us) has no purpose.