To Platt (with additional guidance from Andre) --
I don't know why you warn us against a philosopher who attempts to answer the "ought" question. Isn't that what philosophers are supposed to do -- offer some guidance on how to live a worthwhile life?
Guidance on how we can live a worthwhile life is one thing. Preaching what we ought to do is telling us what is right and wrong. That is coercive and immoral because it violates the principle of individual freedom. It's up to us to discern what is good and bad, or as Andre just wrote, "to walk the bridge."
[Andre]:
You can kick against anything you have no direct control over but as Pirsig says, the good starts in your heart, then in your head and then flows through your hands, from the internal to the external (eternal) through the Tao (which literally means 'bridge'). Static patterns do not afford us freedom, only DQ, the undifferentiated aesthetic continuum, can do this. It is up to us to walk the bridge wisely.
Substitute "Value" for "DQ" and Andre has nailed it. Why do you think we are all perplexed by our ignorance of right and wrong? Here's what I say about this paradox in my online thesis:
"As if designed for a purpose, the physical world is abundant with evidence of a 'master plan'. It is a self-sustained system in which every thing and event not only has a proper time and place but a causal relationship with the Whole. And yet, while man is delivered into this world meticulously packaged and fully equipped for life, no instructions are included. If there is a divine purpose or meaning for this singular journey through existence, it is oddly hidden from the creature who stands most to benefit from it. Does it not seem reasonable that the providential architect of this wondrously crafted universe would have left us with at least a clue to that purpose? The absence of such a clue has given atheists cause to reject both the divinity and the purpose.
"But let us suppose that the Creator in his/her infinite wisdom so designed the world that each creature would have the privilege of living its own reality, guided by its own unique perspective, free of the restrictions that knowledge 'beyond the experience' would impose on its attitudes and behavior. Supposing further that the free expression allowed the individual in his innocence, and the attendant realization of values not otherwise possible, were the very purpose of the Master Plan. Given this scenario, it should come as no surprise that the tree of knowledge should not only be forbidden but so well concealed that even the wisest of creatures would be at a loss to discover it. In deference to the atheists, I submit that the 'missing clue' is our assurance of individual Freedom, that the inscrutability of life's meaning confirms the teleological nature of our experienced world."
Well, there you go. Your answer to the "ought" question: act as you want within the moral guidelines established by individual preferences of the group you are part of. Of course that begs the question, "What do you do when you disagree with your group?" Individuals who have marched to a different drummer have often been the evolutionary movers and shakers.
I think you've just answered your own question, Platt. When you go "against the goup" you are creating something new. In fact, this is the ONLY way one can move human culture. From Copernicus to Einstein, Galileo to Newton, Bach to Beethoven, every significant advance in science, philosophy and the arts has started with an individual defying the collective standard. It's called "individualism", Platt, and I know it's something you firmly believe in. What I can't understand is why you attribute valuistic decisions of breakthrough proportions to inanimate "patterns of reality" instead of the individual subjects responsible for them.
It makes sense to me and I deny the subjectivity of value sensibility. Why? Because such valuations occur before any word-thoughts such as brain, awareness, environment, unconscious or subjectivity. Such words and concepts are themselves the result of immediate, ineffable valuations. Reality is not the words but what happens before you can think of the words to describe reality.
"Word-thoughts" or not, valuation is the realization of cognizant PEOPLE, Platt. Inanimate objects don't evaluate. (At least they didn't before RMP planted this myth in our minds.) Don't let the labels confuse you. You are the Knower of what you value, whether you call it awareness, consciousness, or sensibility. Do you deny that the values you realize are subjective? If so, pray tell me what "subjective" means to you.
(I'll take up the issue of Islam's "flourishing civilization" later.) Thanks Platt (and Andre), 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/
