John, Carmen, LS
[John]
> Metaphysics is important, and I am not in agreement with David when he says "whole
> schools of philosophy... have evaded, avoided, or in general dismissed metaphysics".
> They may have ignored metaphysics, because at base they assumed a metaphysics which
> they were unwilling or unable to question. Ask the average guy in the street what is
> his metaphysics and he won't know what you are talking about.
[Dave]
Your point is well taken and I agree that in many cases (especially religions)
if not most, the base was/is given, not open for discussion, and in fact
questioning had it own special category called heresy. Eight years ago, prior
to Lila, I was one of those average guys in the street who couldn't have given
you the definition of metaphysics, let alone articulated a personal one. I now
know the definition but somehow I don't think that's half the battle.
[Carmen]
Love your optimism and Thoreau quotes. Indeed I've heard the GNAWING too,
hopefully it's " a strong and beautiful bug.. buried for ages under many
concentric layers of (my heads') woodenness" and he'll someday make it out.
In my "coming of metaphysics" article "Novel Reality" posted on the MoQ site
(written prior to becoming involved in this discussion) I could not see how it
would be possible to be "post metaphysical" by literally interpreting that to
mean "past a point were there is any common basis for reality" The quote was:
Under what circumstances is it legitimate for political authorities, mere
human beings, to exercise power over other human beings?.... Mr. Habermas
thinks that the question is especially urgent in an era that is post
metaphysical in the sense that it [society] has lost the sense that we have
wholly external foundations by which to ground our judgments and choices.
Whether or not we believe that God exists, it seems clear that as citizens in
a heterogeneous society we must proceed on the understanding that our choices
are our own. The New York Times Book Review 8/18/96 by Cass R Sunstien
review of Between Facts & Norms Contributions to a discourse theory of law
and democracy by Jurgen Habermas (German political philosopher)
Given the benefit of the LS dialogue and a few years of reflection I would now
have to agree with the above quote that we are indeed in a "post metaphysical"
time and very clearly need to quickly get to a new "metaphysical" one on a
global level.
The problem, however, with both the MoQ and current developments is pragmatism
is their revisable and contingent nature make them seem a much less stable, a
therefore less acceptable, foundation than past bases such as God is Reality
A case in point is you're concern for;
> It is important, paramount, grandotote, hugemongus because it is
> an 'action' principle. IT TELLS YOU WHAT IS WRONG and WHAT IS RIGHT.
>{ "If the higher codes ignore their DEPENDENCE on the lower codes, the lower
> codes will comeback and DESTROY the upper codes." The higher codes might get away
> with it (ignoring the lower codes) but eventually, the lower codes come back
> with a supernatural force and will DEVOUR the higher codes.}
I have wondered why conservative politicians have not jumped on the MoQ as it
contains all their buzzwords "values", "morals", "free market", "capitalism"
but most importantly societies "moral right" to dominant the biological level.
"Hey tree huggers," Pirsig says, "We have the moral right to chain saw as many
hectre acres of rain forest as we want. We're building a better society here,
and that is more moral and good than a few trees. Besides trees are a
renewable resource"
Even though the MoQ acknowledges limits to the domination defining those
limits still is a very complex and fuzzy process which IMHO the MoQ does
little to help.
Is the domination limit, the extinction of one species or one hundred
thousand? How do we know? Does MoQ tell us? No, just that there is some limit?
So I agree wholeheartedly that emphasizing the ability of the lower levels to
destroy the upper ones must not be overlooked.
I like the way the proponents of the Gaia theory put it.
"The earth system is too robust to be killed by us, [not] by a million
hydrogen bombs,.. There is some solace in knowing that if homo sapiens does
not prove wise enough, and is snuffed out by Gaia.. at least life will go on.
As the 'geologian' Thomas Berry emphasizes: the earth is primary, we are
secondary, and if we continue to deny this simple fact and go on as we are, we
will go the way of the dinosaurs."
Happy Earth Day
Dave Thomas
MOQ Online - http://www.moq.org
