[MD] Philosophy and Philosophology

[Ham Priday]

Greetings, Andre --


[Ham to Bodvar]:
> In ZAMM Pirsig says that "Quality is the primary empirical reality
> of the world."  I take his use of "the world" to mean reality.

[Andre]:
> Sorry for butting in Ham but this is incorrect. Quality is the primary
> reality, 'the world' is the empirical abstraction from this reality. It is
> in this sense you must learn to understand the 'evil, pain and
> dysfunction' you talk about. A bit of Buddhist understanding of
> the terms will help you.

Okay, I stand corrected.  However, an abstraction from absolute or 
"universal" Goodness still does not equate with immorality.  Our inability 
to see the woods for the trees does not make the trees evil.  Where does 
evil and dysfunction come from?

> They come from our incomplete abstractions. That is, we abstract in a
> subject/object/divisive way which blinds us to see and experience the
> Quality of the One/All/ nothingness/ Tao.

> The biblical scribes had their own reasons for reducing us to sinners.
> Remember that in Plato's time the passions residing in and through the
> flesh, were considered an obstacle to attain Truth...which is different to
> Quality. We are still at a social pattern of value here trying to dominate
> the biological value. What better and more devastating way than to use
> God as the final authority on biological/sinful condemnation!

[Ham]:
> What "proves the superiority of DQ to S/O" except for our preference of 
> it?

[Andre]:
> The simple fact the it comes first from which S/O is generated. Read ZMM!

[Ham]:
> How is man, a finite and imperfect being of limited wisdom, to know
> for a certainty that Goodness is better than Badness?

[Andre]:
> Because goodness strives towards harmony.
> We like harmony in simplicity. ...

"We LIKE harmony" proves my point.  The value of Goodness is that WE PREFER 
it and choose to act on it.  Quality (Value) is NOT innate to the universe. 
It is realized only by man's sensibility.

> Badness is just messy and is used as a 'driving force' toward good.
> If all were perfect from the start we would not be here.

If badness drives toward goodness, you have an evolutionary source starting 
with evil.  There is no metaphysical or logical necessity to attribute 
change and evolution to the primary source.   I see very little moral 
difference between such a philosophy and a religion which teaches the 
redemption of sin.

[Ham]:
> You suggest that before thoughts were conveyed in language, there were no
> societies and (according to your logic) no human beings, either.  Come to
> your senses, Bo.  What kind of philosophy is that?

[Andre (not speaking for Bodvar)]:
> A whole lot less complicated than it is now.

That's for sure!.

--Ham