Quoting Ham Priday <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Hello Platt --
>
> You said to Krimel:
>
>
> > Pirsig stated that the world is primarily a moral order: "Because
> > Quality is morality. Make no mistake about it. They're identical.
> > And if Quality is the primary reality of the world then that means
> > morality is also the primary reality of the world. The world is
> > primarily a moral order." (Lila, 7) \
> >
> > So to clear up the confusion, do you agree?
>
> Platt, these propositions (equations?) are poetic euphemisms, not logical
> premises. So you are further confusing your differences with Krimel rather
> than clarifying them. Pirsig's axiom Morality=Quality=Reality, from which
> you draw these conclusions, lacks empirical or metaphysical validity. I
> tend to regard such reasoning as "nihilistic idealism".
>
> Even if the world were primarily a moral order, which I deny, it doesn't
> mean that morality is the primary reality. Morality is a descriptive term,
> like Quality and Goodness. Descriptions do not a universe make. The taste
> of chocolate does not bake a cake. The beauty of Aphrodite does not create
> a woman, nor does the intellect of an Einstein make a man. The essence of
> reality does not lie in its appearance or its order. Reality, whether it is
> physical or phenomenal, presupposes a primary source that is more than an
> attribute of its appearance. Even quantum physics, which has called
> material reality into question, has not abandoned energy as the fundamental
> "building block" of the universe. Without a primary source, existence is
> reduced to solipsism -- a dreamer's fantasy with nothing to account for it.
Hi Ham,
I guess we're all fairly familiar with your criticisms of Pirsig's metaphysics.
What I don't understand is how your "Essence" is any less of an axiom "without
empirical or metaphysical validity" than Pirsig's Quality. At least Quality
has the validity of impossibility of denial for any denial presupposes the
Quality
of truth.
> > My point is simply that consensus among scientists
> > (or any other group) isn't always reliable.
>
> I think we forget that Science is man's methodology for exploring reality as
> a cause-and-effect system. The material progress we've enjoyed on this
> planet for the last 300 years or so is largely due to what we've learned
> from Science. But if you take away cause there is no effect, and the
> scientific method was not designed to explain the origin of cause. Only a
> metaphysical understanding of reality can get beyond evolutionary process
> and give us a plausible reason for the existence of cognizant agents in a
> causal world.
Agree. Science seems to believe the cause-and-effect system came into existence
for no cause whatsoever. Of course, that's not the only thing that limits the
view of science. They can't deal with singular events either.
Best regards,
Platt
-------------------------------------------------
This mail sent through IMP: http://horde.org/imp/
Moq_Discuss mailing list
Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
Archives:
http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
