[MD] Moral Responsibility

[Ham Priday]

Hi Joe --

> Hi Ham,
>

> Hopefully we are at the crux of our disagreement.  Physics,
> metaphysics follow differing logical rules.  The logic for physics
> (mathematics) is incapable of describing evolution (levels in
> existence), metaphysics.

The only "mathematical logic" I am aware of that can be applied to 
metaphysics concerns the prime unity (Infinity) vs. differentiated existence 
(Finitude).  This may be expressed as 1/α = 0 or α/N = α, neither of which 
is conceptually meaningful.  Evolution is a serial process, whether 
conceived as a "hierarchy of levels" or not; so I don't see how it can be 
described numerically.  I'm not a mathemetician, but if you have a numerical 
formulation for continuously unfolding events, I'd like to see it.

> Pirsig suggests that the template of metaphysics is DQ/SQ.
> This enables a place in logic for indefinable reality as
> exemplified by evolution, levels in existence.  Metaphysically
> existing levels enable a concept for differing individualities.
> Morality has a logic of differentiation in metaphysics as well
> as a Faith-based differentiation!

By making reality "indefinable" Pirsig's template essentially ignores 
metaphysics, which is why the MoQ is not a metaphysical thesis in the 
classical sense.  What he has constructed is a euphemistic paradigm 
("figures of speech", as Steve would say) for evolutionary existence.  To 
claim that ultimate reality progresses toward betterness because the 
physical universe evolves in nature is a misconception that lacks 
metaphysical support.  Morality is relational (rather than 
"differentiated"), and really applies only to man's behavior in the world, 
so again I see no logical justification for attributing it to the physical 
universe.  Also, can you explain what you call the "Faith-based 
differentiation" of Morality?

> MOQ, proposes an indefinable, evolving reality. This surpasses the
> possibilities in mathematical logic of physics by acknowledging evolution.
> The error message for the 1/0 (a necessary concept of evolution), removes
> SOM intentional/real existence as a possible metaphysical construct for
> evolution.

Iasmuch as "1/0" is an invalid mathematical expression that leads to an 
error, why do you consider it a "necessary concept of evolution"?   And what 
do you regard as "real existence" as opposed to "intentional existence"? 
Evolution is an empirical principle which derives from the temporal mode of 
human experience.  Were we able to experience the universe as a 'fait 
accompli' evolution would be meaningless.

> Imho evolution is not face [faith?]-based.  A perception of metaphysics as 
> the MOQ
> that Pirsig realized describes reality.  MOQ is more reasonable than SOM 
> in
> identifying individuality as evolutionary existence rather than the
> intentional existence of SOM.  DQ/SQ is separate from a logical definition
> of SOM demanding  participation by a Faith-based Creator.  There is no
> reasonable explanation.  Logical Metaphysics rules.

"Reasonable" is subjective when undefined entities are involved.  I assume 
the empirical subject-object worldview is what you mean by "intentional" 
existence.  I can't relate to your cosmology, Joe, because I look at Value 
as a verb rather than a "moral level"  (see my post of 9/13),   Like 
"desire" and "love", Value infers an active agent, so existence is 
unreasonable to me without a cognitive (value-sensible) subject.

> MOQ explains evolution as hierarchical levels in existence. The
> Intentional/Real division of existence in SOM demands a preexisting belief
> in an uncaused/cause prior to existence. Can only a negation of a 
> perception
> describe a new conception?  How?

Hypothetical levels are no more reasonable than natural process over time, 
which is how we actually experience and record evolution.  It's pointless to 
introduce Essentialism in an analysis of the MoQ which rejects an 
"intentional" agent.  The comparison you are trying to draw between the 
"intentional/real division" and the "self/other dichotomy" is invalid for 
several reasons, mainly that SOM does not acknowledge a "real" division. 
.

> The logical thought, mathematics, is the definition for physics.
> The belief in a supernatural being is Faith, SOM.

That existential reality depends on the relation of subjects and objects is 
an empirical precept that has nothing to do with "faith".  What is your 
belief in a "superhuman" Quality based on if not Faith?

> The acceptance of a determined metaphysical logic for reality, 
> indefinable,
> not non-existent evolution as levels in existence, DQ/SQ is reasonable.

Whatever people believe is reasonable to them.

Nice try, Joe.  Were it not for the inconsistencies of MoQ vs. Essentialism 
you might have scored some points.  As it stands, they are metaphysically 
incompatible.

Best regards,
Ham

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

> On 9/12/11 5:06 PM, "Ham Priday" <hampday1 at verizon.net> wrote:
>>
>> Hi Joe --
>>
>>
>>> Hi Ham and all,
>>>
>>> Evolution!  Neither the definition for evolution or the reality
>>> of evolution is determined by an actor's value system, or
>>> the mores of his/her society.  DQ/SQ metaphysics supports
>>> indefinable/definable reality in evolution!
>>
>> If DQ/SQ applies only to evolution it is not a "metaphysics" of Reality
>> (defined or undefined) but a euphemistic paradigm for space/time 
>> existence.
>> There is no logical or philosophical justification for assuming temporal
>> process as a condition of ultimate (uncreated) Reality.
>>
>> Essentially speaking,
>> Ham
>>
>> _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
>>
>> On 9/12/11 1:04 PM, "Ham Priday" <hampday1 at verizon.net> wrote:
>>
>>> We all have the freedom to act (or not act) within the limitations of 
>>> our
>>> physical being.  Volitional acts are motivated by one's sense of value.
>>> Whether a particular action is moral or not is determined by both the
>>> actor's value system  and the mores of his/her society.