[MD] Catching up to Pirsig

[Ham Priday]

To Platt (with additional guidance from Andre) --



> I don't know why you warn us against a philosopher who
> attempts to answer the "ought" question. Isn't that what
> philosophers are supposed to do -- offer some guidance
> on how to live a worthwhile life?

Guidance on how we can live a worthwhile life is one thing.  Preaching what 
we ought to do is telling us what is right and wrong.  That is coercive and 
immoral because it violates the principle of individual freedom.  It's up to 
us to discern what is good and bad, or as Andre just wrote, "to walk the 
bridge."

[Andre]:
> You can kick against anything you have no direct control over
> but as Pirsig says, the good starts in your heart, then in your
> head and then flows through your hands, from the internal to
> the external (eternal) through the Tao (which literally means 'bridge').
>
> Static patterns do not afford us freedom, only DQ, the
> undifferentiated aesthetic continuum, can do this.  It is up to us
> to walk the bridge wisely.

Substitute "Value" for "DQ" and Andre has nailed it.  Why do you think we 
are all perplexed by our ignorance of right and wrong?  Here's what I say 
about this paradox in my online thesis:

"As if designed for a purpose, the physical world is abundant with evidence 
of a 'master plan'.  It is a self-sustained system in which every thing and 
event not only has a proper time and place but a causal relationship with 
the Whole.  And yet, while man is delivered into this world meticulously 
packaged and fully equipped for life, no instructions are included.  If 
there is a divine purpose or meaning for this singular journey through 
existence, it is oddly hidden from the creature who stands most to benefit 
from it.  Does it not seem reasonable that the providential architect of 
this wondrously crafted universe would have left us with at least a clue to 
that purpose?  The absence of such a clue has given atheists cause to reject 
both the divinity and the purpose.

"But let us suppose that the Creator in his/her infinite wisdom so designed 
the world that each creature would have the privilege of living its own 
reality, guided by its own unique perspective, free of the restrictions that 
knowledge 'beyond the experience' would impose on its attitudes and 
behavior.  Supposing further that the free expression allowed the individual 
in his innocence, and the attendant realization of values not otherwise 
possible, were the very purpose of the Master Plan.  Given this scenario, it 
should come as no surprise that the tree of knowledge should not only be 
forbidden but so well concealed that even the wisest of creatures would be 
at a loss to discover it.  In deference to the atheists, I submit that the 
'missing clue' is our assurance of individual Freedom, that the 
inscrutability of life's meaning confirms the teleological nature of our 
experienced world."

> Well, there you go. Your answer to the "ought" question:
> act as you want within the moral guidelines established by
> individual preferences of the group you are part of.  Of course
> that begs the question, "What do you do when you disagree
> with your group?" Individuals who have marched to a different
> drummer have often been the evolutionary movers and shakers.

I think you've just answered your own question, Platt.  When you go "against 
the goup" you are creating something new.  In fact, this is the ONLY way one 
can move human culture.  From Copernicus to Einstein, Galileo to Newton, 
Bach to Beethoven, every significant advance in science, philosophy and the 
arts has started with an individual defying the collective standard.  It's 
called "individualism", Platt, and I know it's something you firmly believe 
in.  What I can't understand is why you attribute valuistic decisions of 
breakthrough proportions to inanimate "patterns of reality" instead of the 
individual subjects responsible for them.

> It makes sense to me and I deny the subjectivity of
> value sensibility. Why? Because such valuations occur
> before any word-thoughts such as brain, awareness,
> environment, unconscious or subjectivity. Such words and
> concepts are themselves the result of immediate, ineffable
> valuations. Reality is not the words but what happens
> before you can think of the words to describe reality.

"Word-thoughts" or not, valuation is the realization of cognizant PEOPLE, 
Platt.  Inanimate objects don't evaluate.  (At least they didn't before RMP 
planted this myth in our minds.)  Don't let the labels confuse you.  You are 
the Knower of what you value, whether you call it awareness, consciousness, 
or sensibility.  Do you deny that the values you realize are subjective?  If 
so, pray tell me what "subjective" means to you.

(I'll take up the issue of Islam's "flourishing civilization" later.)

Thanks Platt (and Andre),
Ham