[MD] Dawkins quotes RMP on religion.

[Ham Priday]

Hi Ron --

Concerning my response to the question "How do you escape the problem of 
solipsism", you said:


> Within a subject/ object paradigm of a universe of 1's and 0's this
> works great but with the advent of relativity theory, nothingness
> takes on a new meaning, space may be warped, there may be no such
> thing as an absolute vacuum. This answers my questions about how
> value sensibility expands and creates matter but I fail to see
> how the explanation addresses Solipsism (not like that's a bad thing).
> I guess you are saying that differential reality does not exist
> Without value sensible agents. Which falls into what Pirsig says
> Only Pirsig allows for differential reality to exist independent of
> Of autonomous agents. Which is supported by various scientific evidence.

Scientific evidence does not support metaphysical theory.  Science deals 
exclusively with objective
knowledge, and its evidence supports only the principles and beliefs of a 
coherent physical system.  While such evidence is useful in advancing 
technology and improving man's health and material environment, it is a 
mistake (and IMO, a copout) to assume that ultimate Reality conforms to the 
laws of science or that Philosophy must defer to the theories of physicists 
and cosmologists.

We are all "solipsistic" in our objectivization of the universe, but that 
doesn't mean that our experience is random or chaotic, or that it doesn't 
have a consistent pattern that we all relate to.  Clearly this pattern is 
"universal" in that we all participate in the same universe, just as we are 
all cognizant entities negated from the same source.  Indeed, the 
universality of the cosmos manifests the integrity of Essence.  What I'm 
saying is that the laws of cause-and-effect, thermodynamics, relativity, and 
conservation of energy are all quantitative principles that apply to 
relational existence as an objective system.  They do not include subjective 
or intuitive judgments, psycho-somatic feelings, moral precepts, or 
qualitative values that are proprietary to the observer.

Consequently, "being-aware" is unique for each self; no two individuals 
experience the world in precisely the same way.  By the values we choose, we 
each create our own being in the world.  Your experience of the color red, 
for example, is not the same as mine, even though redness can be defined 
quantitatively as a specific band of the light spectrum.  Your experience of 
a concert, motion picture, or personality will elicit feelings, 
associations, and psychic responses that I cannot possibly experience 
because they are not part of my being.  My being and your being are not 
solipsisms because we are universally connected and share the same 
existence.  But valuistically we are independent and autonomous.  And, since 
value-sensibility is our essence, man's role as the free agent in existence 
is to make Value aware, individually and differentially, as beingness.

Incidentally, I'm not altogether sure that Pirsig "allows for differential 
reality to exist independent of
autonomous agents."  He has convoluted reality to such an extent with levels 
and patterns that the existence of a differentiated cosmos independent of 
man is obscured in his writings.  While I'm sure that you can find a 
quotation that supports this view, it will undoubtedly be vague and 
euphemistic, since any such ontology verges on SOM, and the author is 
reluctant to even acknowledge the self as an independent entity.

Essentially,
Ham