[MD] Catching up to Pirsig

[Ham Priday]

Hey Platt --


I'll take one more crack at this before moving on to other matters.


> I'm not in the least perplexed by right and wrong,
> especially now that I have Pirsig's rational moral hierarchy
> as a guide.

A hierarchy is only a ranking of components in an ordered system.  The only 
guidance it can provide is whether a given component is subordinate to the 
others.  In Pirsig's hierarchy Intellect is primary which, as a moralistic 
guide, must mean that it is the supreme Good (excellence?), followed by 
Social Value (good?), Biological Value (fair?), and Inorganic Value (poor?). 
So, you're being "guided" primarily by intellection, with decreasing 
influence by society, biology, and inorganic phenomena, respectively.

The ranking makes a certain amount of sense, insofar as intellection is YOUR 
thought and reflection, whereas the other levels are either what other 
people think, what other life forms do, or (lastly) how the material world 
evolves.  But I fail to see how an intellectual principle accounts for the 
value of a Renoir painting, a Rachmaninov concerto, human compassion, or 
individual freedom.  Nor do I comprehend how this hierarchy can serve as a 
practical guide to moral decision-making.

When I said "every significant advance in science, philosophy and the arts 
has started with an individual defying the collective standard." you 
replied:.

> Right you are. So I wonder why you place so much
> emphasis on groupthink morality.

How could you possibly draw that conclusion from anything I've said?

I defined morality as a human convention adopted by a society to assure 
optimum peace and harmony with minimal infringement on individual freedom. 
In other words, cooperation and advancement of the collective requires some 
degree of behavioral compliance on the part of the individual.  If you 
consider this "groupthink", perhaps you should think about moving to a 
desert island.

> There are two kinds of so-called "inanimate" objects --
> things like atoms which exhibit prehensions of their environment
> and things like rocks which don't.
> A rock is not influenced internally by the presence of another
> rock or anything else. Not so for a particle in an atom or an
> atom in a molecule or a molecule in a cell or a cell in a brain.
> These objects evaluate their surroundings and respond
> according to their nature. Nothing mythical about their
> behavior based on their own, if limited, "sensibility."
> In fact, particles, atoms, molecules, cells -- the building blocks
> of the world -- are anything but "inanimate."

The only difference between a rock and the atoms of which it is composed is 
that the rock is relatively stationary (static) and its atoms are in 
constant motion (dynamic). Neither has a mind of its own or the sensory 
accoutrements to realize value.  I don't deny that the objective universe is 
an ordered system, but the order (teleology) is not intrinsic to its 
experienced objects.

[Ham, previously]:
> Do you deny that the values you realize are subjective?
> If so, pray tell me what "subjective" means to you.

[Platt, unequivocally]:
> Yes.
>
> "Subjective" means nothing to me without its companion "objective."
> They are inseparable simultaneous dualities.

Precisely.  Subject and object are the co-dependent contingencies of 
existence. Neither exists without the other.

> But they are merely word-thoughts, not reality. Or perhaps
> we can call them second-order reality that comes after
> first-order reality -- the ineffable "value sense" that you and I
> share with every quantum particle.

Subject and Object are our reality, not "word thoughts", Platt.  But as 
you've been persuaded to dismiss both your subjective awareness and your 
objective world as "unreal'', who am I to dissuade you from this myth?

May you continue to find the guidance you seek from Pirsig's moral 
hierarchy.

Kindest regards,
Ham