[MD] The question WHY?

[X Acto]

John:
>
>  As valuing agents reality is formed from what
>> we prefer, isn't that the essence of the MoQ?
>>
Ham:
> 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.

Ron:
I think "value" has more to do with meaning than preference, at least in the manner
Ham is speaking about, Ham insists on turning MoQ into a nihlistic relativistic
straw man. He loves knocking him down.

John:
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.

Ron:
Why is it when I said that, I was being a subjectivist?

John:
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.


Ron:
I think the Platos Republic, summed up the cause as living beyond necessity,
perpetual expansion.

Ham:
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.

Ron:
sez you

John:
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.

Ham:

> 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.
>

Ron:
If I get this strait, without man, the universe is valueless. Man brings meaning
to the universe. Problem is we don't and can't know this, for, as you say Ham,
"Meaning" is man made. So "Roles" and "Places" in the universe are man made.
For example, you have made up the idea of mans role as a "value transformer"
or "reclaimer"  or something technical sounding like he's part of a television set.
It's the tired old accusation of relativism. The point Ham insists on missing, because 
then he'd have little to discuss, is that the type of value that sets the stage for
the type of value he's talking about is dynamic, indefinable and unknowable
why Pirsigs MoQ seems incomplete, because it is, it is open ended and not
a self contained system, that part just drives Ham up a wall. See he, like alot
of others, need things spelled out. My bullshit modulator seems to be unusually
fine tuned on my value reclaimer, maybe I need to adjust the contrast and saturation
because perhaps I'm not living up to my designated role in the universe.