Krimel and Kieffer --
[Krimel]:
What Pirsig seems want in his account of evolution is similar
to what he wants when talking about iron filings having a
"preference". He wants a universe filled with purpose and
free will, a universe that can in some sense be held morally
accountable.
What is the purpose of the universe, and who holds it "morally accountable"?
If morality is already there, inherent in the universe, it is accountable
for itself. Then the "moral purpose" is evolution as we experience it, and
it doesn't need an "evaluator". Is this the teleology Pirsig wants? Does
it make epistemological sense?
Preference and intention are so integral to our nature that we
see them in everything. ...
Any philosophy that attempts to imbue the universe with purpose
and intent is just regressing to the intellectual equivalent of
sucking its thumb.
Exactly. So the precept of purpose and intent is "our nature", not that of
the universe. In other words, morality is subjective, and the meaning of
existence is realized in the value sensibility of the individual. This is
precisely what I mean by being-aware. Awareness in proprietary to the
individual subject. WE are the universe's evaluators. WE are the agents
who bring value into a relational world as evolving objects and events. It
is our appraisal, our judgments, that determine what is moral. The basis of
any morality system is the collective aggregate of individual value
preferences. This is why subjectivity cannot be dismissed in a value-based
philosophy.
[KO]:
All this not withstanding the fact that there is no detectable trace
of a wispy 'I' pervading my brain or body and therefore that 'I' is
really illusory along with any will-power i appear to have.
The wikipedia page on Teleology refers to this viewpoint as
'intrinsic finality'.
[Krimel]:
Right, there is that watered down version of teleology that would
classify the Heat Death as teleology. Unfortunately I don't think
that is the kind of teleology Pirsig is seeking to prop up. I think
he is trying to construct a philosophical thumb to suck.
But don't let me get away with ignoring your point about the
illusory "I". "I" just don't have time for that ATM.
That's too bad, because Pirsig's "philosophical thumb" is what we're all
sucking on in the life experience. Only it's our realization that value
lies beyond the experience of otherness, that it's the "ultimate reality"
from which we are estranged at creation. Value is essential to our finite
being-aware. It is our vital link to Absolute Essence.
I submit that your "teleological problem" is Pirsig's refusal to acknowledge
the subject as value-sensibility.
Essentially yours,
Ham
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/
