[MD] The question WHY?

[John Carl]

On Tue, Nov 17, 2009 at 1:34 PM, Ham Priday <hampday1 at verizon.net> wrote:

>
> G'day John --
>
>
>  As valuing agents reality is formed from what
>> we prefer, isn't that the essence of the MoQ?
>>
>
> It may be the "morality" of the MoQ but, if so, it's incomplete.  For if
> reality represented only "what we prefer", it would be a Utopia.



Well to be clear, and in philosophy that a good place to start, I said "is
formed from what we prefer".  And I should make it clear that this reality
is my reality, which is obviously constructed according to my preference.

Now.  As to Utopia,  to be completely precise we'd have to define what
Utopia is.   But whatever it is, men could choose it.  They don't.  Men
prefer conflict and suffering.  Humans even reject schemes that smack of
"Utopianism", not because such schemes are impossible - they are clearly
possible and even preferable.  But Men want something different.  The
reality we have is the preference of the mass of us.  Demonstrably so.



Clearly this isn't the case.  Floods, famines, disease, and physical
> abnormality, not to mention human cruelty and violence, must be accounted
> for as part of our reality.  Existence is a self-perpetuating system, but it
> is not driven by morality.  We inhabit an amoral universe.



Whew!  Ok, I disagree, as you probably know already.  Existence is at least
as much self-abnegating as it is self-perpetuating, for that all that is
awareness dies.  Existence isn't possible except as part of a moral system
and our entire cosmos is a moral entity.

I don't know if you're trying hard here to be wrong on purpose, or you just
can't help yourself but man that's an awful lot of error in a very little
space.



> Distinguishing the good and the beautiful from the evil and the unseemly is
> man's yardstick.  This is the human role in existence that Pirsig doesn't
> seem to understand or appreciate.  Man is the measure of all things: It is
> HE who has the freedom to choose from the full spectrum of moral values that
> what pleases him. Value-sensibility together with reason affords man the
> unique power to discriminate and the freedom to act accordingly.
>


Well I agree with you somewhat, except I don't concur with your
disparagement of Pirsig, and I wonder if value-sensibility in the
dichotomous pattern you present is not actually the rudiments of reason...
but ok.





> Ok the best way to sum this up, I think, is that when you say "there are
>> no absolutes" is itself an absolute.  I think Platt said that to Marsha
>> already, so no great insight, but a bit deeper explication by JR, and
>> tying the absolute to experience.  "Absolute Experience" seems to me
>> to be an adequate meeting point between you and Platt.  You with
>> your essence, him with his experience.
>>
>
> The statement that "there are no absolutes" is an assertion which, if true,
> is also an absolute fact.  However, simply saying it does not make it true;
> it only states a position.  Royce's absolutist position on experience
> reminds me of the BBC comedy "Are you being served?" in which the matronly
> Mrs. Slocombe used to say, "I am UNANIMOUS in that!"
>
>
 Mr Humphries would smirk and reply... "Well yes my dearie, but you must
admit that not saying it doesn't make it not true."

My summing up of Royce's argument is undoubtedly inadequate.  Cliff note
philosophy tends to  be bad philosophy.


As to my establishing a common ground with Platt, this will be difficult
> because he has bought into the idea that atoms, molecules, billiard balls --
>  indeed anything that moves -- is experiencing preferences, that the
> universe itself has chosen "betterness" as its evolutionary goal.  (How can
> Pirsigians with all their intellectual sophistication scorn any theory that
> smacks of theism, yet cling to the ancient myth of Animism?)
>
>
Well I remember a mutual admiration you and I  shared for Dr. Lanza and my
fondness for the Biocentrism he posits as an answer to your query.  And
Needleman cautions not to dismiss the ancient myths quite so blythely.
If man possesses consciousness and is of the same stuff as the rest of the
cosmos, is it so difficult to realize the rest of the cosmos contains
consciousness?




>  What I meant by the statement of "unconscious metaphysics tend to be bad"
>> is
>> the problem which stems from absolute relativism is that the self is then
>> taken as the absolute basis of being - which you point out below as being
>> a
>> problem.
>>
>
> I'm not sure what you mean by "unconscious metaphysics," unless you feel
> that the author is unconscious.



What I mean is holding beliefs  about the way things are without every
actually examining one's stance.  The mass of humanity, in other words.
 It's quaintly humourous that you have a hard time understanding such a
thing, and I think a noble tribute to your willingess to traverse  "the high
country of the mind", but alas, most people do suffer from "unconsciouslly
adopted metaphysics."  My hypothesis is that the default is
self-centeredness, or Subjectively oriented worldview - which is SOM, and
"bad" metaphysics.



>  Possibly you meant to say "intuitive" or "inductive" as opposed to
> empirically-based metaphysics.  But, you see, once you speculate beyond the
> realm of relational existence, you are forced to rely on your intuition.



> And, as I've said numerous times, the human mind does not have access to
> absolute truth.  Therefore, it goes without saying that metaphysical
> conclusions can only be based on hypothetical theories.
>
>
Well, Royce and I and Pirsig all disagree.  Value is more than hypothetical.
 It's logically necessary, even for essence.  And Royce makes clear argument
based upon the self-evident existence of error then the subsequent reasoning
based upon the conditions that make error possible, that I haven't heard
anyone take on and refute yet.

So ah'm stickin' to my guns Ham.