[MD] Is experience just DQ?

[Hamilton Priday]

Greetings, Adrie --

On Mon, April 15, 2013 5:51 PM, Adrie Kintziger wrote:

> (Ham's proposal)....
> As for my motivation in presenting this concept ("particular tastes"?)
> here, the reason is simple enough.  There is an obvious parallel
> between these two valuistic philosophies which deserves to be
> explored for the benefit of both.  What stands in the way is
> inflexibility on the part of the debaters. Nothing is gained by a
> discussion like this unless or until the protagonists are willing to
> seriously consider each other's premises.
>
> (Adrie's response)...
> Well, this is a nice gesture. Noblesse oblige.
> If you are so noble and honest to challenge the other debaters
> to give you the benefit of the doubt, you should present at least
> one or two chapters from your book here in the open , so we can
> shred it to pieces like you do with Pirsigs work.
>
> For my part, i'm interested in the chapter 'Amoral Universe' ....cant'
> hardly wait  to piss myself. even without reading it,
> i can hear the angels singing 'bout the absolute source.

There is no chapter with that specific title, Adrie, but I'm happy to 
provide a brief explanation as to why the universe is amoral. ...

First of all, it is empirically evident that earthquakes, tornados, 
tsunamis, famine, disease, and genetic deformities occur periodically and 
cause much suffering on this planet.  This is neither moral nor immoral; it 
is simply indicative of the range of values to which we 'earth creatures' 
are exposed.

Secondly, the notion that Morality exists independently of man's sensibility 
and guides the universe to "betterness" makes no sense from a metaphysical 
viewpoint.  If Value (Quality) is an attribute of an uncreated Source that 
transcends space/time, as I've suggested, there is no need for that Source, 
or the universe it designs, to "evolve toward betterness".  Indeed, Essence 
is already immutable in its absolute perfection!

Finally, goodness and evil are moral polarities of the law of contradiction 
which applies to all existential process.  If we didn't experience evil, we 
wouldn't recognize goodness.  If we didn't feel pain or sorrow, we would be 
oblivious of pleasure or joy.  If we were not awed by the magnificent, we 
would be unaware of the trite.  In other words, Value would be unrealizable, 
and morality inconceivable.

But we DO realize Value; it is the very purpose of our existence as sensible 
agents.  In fact, it is my theory that man, as a sensible being, affords 
Essence the means by which the Value of Essence may be realized autonomously 
and without bias.

If this simple argument causes you to wet your pants, maybe it's the 
excitement of gaining some insight that never occurred to you before. 
Incidentally, while I've expressed some differences with Pirsig's thesis, I 
doubt that my criticisms have ever risen to the level of "shredding his work 
to pieces".

Anyway, I'll refrain from boring this august group with quotations from my 
book. at least until the senior members give me permission to do so.

Essentially speaking,
Ham