[MD] Dawkins a Materialist (is watching?)

[Ham Priday]

Micah --

> Ron,
>
> I see where you, Case, and Platt misinterpret me. "Objective reality"
> doesn't mean reality is primary. Objective has a different meaning than
> primary. Not only do they have different meanings, they're spelled
> different. Now there is no "objective" way to show reality is primary, we
> would need to be present to prove it is primary, which is a contradiction.
>
> Reality is objective - not in my head, it however is not primary...

I don't even claim to be a Pirsigian, and I'm confused by your coyness!
If reality isn't primary, then what is?   It seems to me that when you
define "objective" as what is not "in your head" you are acknowledging
"subjective" which IS in your head.  Whatever is objective infers a subject
to experience it.  Without a subject nothing can be called an object.  I
know that's Pirsig's detested S/O, but it's the reality of the existence we
live in.

What is conspicuous by its absence in your assertions is a definition of
your "reality".  Since you avoid the term "subjective" and refuse to define
what is "primary", we're at a loss to understand your ontology.  We need to
know what is real for you as opposed to what is secondary or illusory, and
how these two contingencies (if they are such) relate to each other.

You have also accused Platt and me of excess "clutter", which you define as
"faith".  I don't know if one can have too much faith, but I am able to
recognize statements that don't have enough clarity to make sense.  And, for
some inexplicable reason, Micah, you've failed to articulate your
Objectivist position clearly.  Might I suggest that if you are a contrarian
with respect to the MoQ, it's time to "come out of the closet".  I can
assure you from personal experience that you won't be excommunicated ;-).

Cheers,
Ham