Hey Platt --
I'll take one more crack at this before moving on to other matters.
I'm not in the least perplexed by right and wrong,
especially now that I have Pirsig's rational moral hierarchy
as a guide.
A hierarchy is only a ranking of components in an ordered system. The only
guidance it can provide is whether a given component is subordinate to the
others. In Pirsig's hierarchy Intellect is primary which, as a moralistic
guide, must mean that it is the supreme Good (excellence?), followed by
Social Value (good?), Biological Value (fair?), and Inorganic Value (poor?).
So, you're being "guided" primarily by intellection, with decreasing
influence by society, biology, and inorganic phenomena, respectively.
The ranking makes a certain amount of sense, insofar as intellection is YOUR
thought and reflection, whereas the other levels are either what other
people think, what other life forms do, or (lastly) how the material world
evolves. But I fail to see how an intellectual principle accounts for the
value of a Renoir painting, a Rachmaninov concerto, human compassion, or
individual freedom. Nor do I comprehend how this hierarchy can serve as a
practical guide to moral decision-making.
When I said "every significant advance in science, philosophy and the arts
has started with an individual defying the collective standard." you
replied:.
Right you are. So I wonder why you place so much
emphasis on groupthink morality.
How could you possibly draw that conclusion from anything I've said?
I defined morality as a human convention adopted by a society to assure
optimum peace and harmony with minimal infringement on individual freedom.
In other words, cooperation and advancement of the collective requires some
degree of behavioral compliance on the part of the individual. If you
consider this "groupthink", perhaps you should think about moving to a
desert island.
There are two kinds of so-called "inanimate" objects --
things like atoms which exhibit prehensions of their environment
and things like rocks which don't.
A rock is not influenced internally by the presence of another
rock or anything else. Not so for a particle in an atom or an
atom in a molecule or a molecule in a cell or a cell in a brain.
These objects evaluate their surroundings and respond
according to their nature. Nothing mythical about their
behavior based on their own, if limited, "sensibility."
In fact, particles, atoms, molecules, cells -- the building blocks
of the world -- are anything but "inanimate."
The only difference between a rock and the atoms of which it is composed is
that the rock is relatively stationary (static) and its atoms are in
constant motion (dynamic). Neither has a mind of its own or the sensory
accoutrements to realize value. I don't deny that the objective universe is
an ordered system, but the order (teleology) is not intrinsic to its
experienced objects.
[Ham, previously]:
Do you deny that the values you realize are subjective?
If so, pray tell me what "subjective" means to you.
[Platt, unequivocally]:
Yes.
"Subjective" means nothing to me without its companion "objective."
They are inseparable simultaneous dualities.
Precisely. Subject and object are the co-dependent contingencies of
existence. Neither exists without the other.
But they are merely word-thoughts, not reality. Or perhaps
we can call them second-order reality that comes after
first-order reality -- the ineffable "value sense" that you and I
share with every quantum particle.
Subject and Object are our reality, not "word thoughts", Platt. But as
you've been persuaded to dismiss both your subjective awareness and your
objective world as "unreal'', who am I to dissuade you from this myth?
May you continue to find the guidance you seek from Pirsig's moral
hierarchy.
Kindest regards,
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/
