[MD] Catching up to Pirsig

[Ham Priday]

To Krimel, with a question for Platt --


[Krimel]:
> Preference and intention are so integral to our nature
> that we see them in everything. ...
> Any philosophy that attempts to imbue the universe with
> purpose and intent is just regressing to the intellectual
> equivalent of sucking its thumb.

 [Ham]:
> Exactly.  So the precept of purpose and intent is "our nature",
> not that of the universe.  In other words, morality is subjective,
> and the meaning of existence is realized in the value sensibility
> of the individual.

 [Krimel responds]:
> Well, sort of but not really, morality is by its very nature social.
> Morality is about how we ought to act in relation to others.
> I would say in this sense morality is entirely objective but I see
> objectivity as being what independent observers can agree about.

Why do you equivocate in your comments on this issue?  I don't see how you 
can say morality
is "entirely objective" while asserting that "preference and intent are 
integral to our nature."  Preference and intent are what guide human 
choices, not the evolution of Nature.  The point I was making, which you've 
quoted somewhat out of context, is that preference is man's response to 
perceived values and is proprietary to the individual subject.  Morality is 
the collective expression or consensus of individual (i.e., subjective) 
preferences.  WE are the agents who bring value into our world as evolving 
objects and events.

[Krimel]:
> I agree for the most part but would emphasize that what you
> capitalize above is WE. It is our collective evaluations that matter
> and this is something we adopt individually but not something that
> individuals create individually for themselves.

I totally disagree.  Individuals don't "adopt collective evaluations" unless 
forced to do so by the church or state.  A collective doesn't sense value; 
it is the individual who perceives (realizes) value and chooses to act 
according to his preferences.  If anything, it's the collective which 
"adopts to" the subjective, not the other way around.  The individual, not 
society, is the world's choicemaker.

 [Krimel]:
> I see no need to bring in anything Absolute or Ultimate nor
> do I think we are especially estranged.  Nor do I think that
> the universe is a creation. I think that a sense of what causes
> harm and what promotes life is "essential" to survival.
> But other than that, sure.

The instinctual mechanism by which we avoid danger and harm to our survival 
is built into all living organisms.  Jumping from a hot stove may be 
Pirsig's idea of value sensibility, but it's merely a synaptic response to 
pain.  The values I'm talking about are moralistic or esthetic values like 
goodness, beauty, compassion, and justice.  Only human beings possess this 
kind of sensibility and the freedom to choose discriminately.  Without 
subjective awareness there would be no realization of value, nor a moral 
system to guide society.

While I'm on this topic, Platt said (to Willblake2):

> As for the direction of the universe, again that depends on
> your viewpoint.  From the perspective of time, the universe
> is moving in the direction of becoming better off than before.

Platt, would you please explain what "becoming better off" means in terms of 
an evolving universe, and how (or if) it relates to morality in the "human" 
sense of becoming better off.

Thanks, gentlemen,
--Ham