[MD] Is Quality Different from (Mother) Nature?

[Ham Priday]

Hello John --


Responding to my statement that man invents morality. rather than the other 
way
around, you said:.

> But that point is the point with which I disagree.  It makes more sense
> that the moral structure of the cosmos produces man, who retains
> recognition in his being of this intrinsic morality.   Read Arlo's post on
> abduction and synthesize it with Lanza's theory of Biocentrism and
> that's about as good as I can see for a definition of good.

[Arlo, quoting Wikipedia]:
> "Abduction is a method of logical inference introduced by Charles
> Sanders Peirce which comes prior to induction and deduction for
> which the colloquial name is to have a "hunch". Abductive reasoning
> starts when an inquirer considers of a set of seemingly unrelated facts,
> armed with an intuition that they are somehow connected. The term
> abduction is commonly presumed to mean the same thing as hypothesis;
> however, an abduction is actually the process of inference that
> produces a hypothesis as its end result"

This is specious semantic hype that has nothing to do with goodness or value 
sensibility.
Besides, I don't share Arlo's view because I believe Quality (Value) is 
sensed individually and does not need a "social context" to be realized. 
Also, Lanza is a biologist who hasn't addressed  moral (quality) issues in 
anything I've read.

> The distinction is between morality and freedom.  You say you couldn't
> have freedom if there was intrinsic morality and I say you couldn't have
> freedom UNLESS there was intrinsic morality.
>
> Additionally I don't understand why you think an intrinsic morality
> forces morality, anymore than intrinsic gravity forces one big black hole.
> Plainly gravity is intrinsic;  plainly the planets and stars spin around
> each other and don't "obey" the gravitational pull.

Planets orbit their 'sun' stars by centripetal force, according to the laws 
of gravity, in the same way that you hurl a ball tethered to a string around 
you.  But the point I am trying to make is that there is no morality without 
the freedom to choose.  Planets, robots, trees, and cellular organisms have 
no choice.  They procreate or behave as programmed by Nature (the universe) 
without the sense or knowledge of what might be better.  Man is sensible to 
value -- good and bad -- and has the intellect to organize his world and 
culture according to his choice.

> But I'd like to look a little more at freedom and morality and
> compare these two concepts from different perspectives.
> You use the word "because" - which is always problematic for me,
> as I don't see causation as fundamental.  Freedom and morality
> seems to me to be one of those mutually arising, mutually
> interdependent terms - you can't have choice unless you
> have Quality; you can't have Quality if you don't have choice.

The word "because" doesn't always imply causation.  Unless specifcally 
referencing ontogeny, it is a conjunctive word meaning "since" or "inasmuch 
as" as related to stated premises.  And, again, you are making my point: 
Freedom and morality ARE linked "inasmuch as" you can't have one without the 
other.

> Furthermore, if we  observe the levels of existence as Pirsigians 
> postulate,
> we see a clear continuum of freedom of choice from the inorganic rocks to
> the philosophically dancing chemistry prof.   Just because man has the 
> most
> choice, doesn't mean that nothing else has any - it's a continuum, not a
> sharp dividing line.  If sharp dividing lines between man and the cosmos
> exist, then SOM reigns.
>
> But then, I have a feeling you know that and are just baiting me and us 
> all.
> So there's my nibble.

Well, it so happens that I do not "observe the levels of existence 
Pirsigians postulate," nor does anyone else.  A postulate is a premise 
asserted about a phenomenon whose operating principle can't be observed or 
known.  (If it could be observed, it would be an empirical fact.)

S/O reigns in existence, except that it's not metaphysics.  And the 
concomitant presence of value sensibility and rationality that affords man 
free choice is unique in the animal kingdom.  (I reject animism in all its 
guises.)

No, John, I'm not "baiting" you or anyone.  I don't play those games.  I 
simply tell it as I see it.

Essentially yours,
Ham