Hey Ham, [Ham} > I'll take one more crack at this before moving on to other matters. [Platt] > > 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.
The value of art is related to Dynamic Quality, not the four static levels. Compassion and individual freedom make intellectual level common sense, within limits. > 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. To you morality is strictly social. I've tried to suggest that morality extends to other levels as well. Moreover, on a desert island morality would be vitally needed. Can I drink this water? Right or wrong? Is this insect dangerous? Right or wrong? Values never take a holiday. [Platt] > > 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). Atoms are not only in motion but respond positively or negatively to their neighbors. > Neither has a mind of its own or the sensory > accoutrements to realize value. Not like we have, but definitely of their own. Otherwise, nothing would ever happen. > I don't deny that the objective universe > is > an ordered system, but the order (teleology) is not intrinsic to its > experienced objects. Don't know what that means. > [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? As I said, word-thoughts such as subjects and objects may be considered secondary reality. Primary reality is the value sense of what is while you are thinking about how to describe it. > May you continue to find the guidance you seek from Pirsig's moral > hierarchy. Thanks. I will. Likewise I hope you find guidance from majority vote if that is your standard. Actually I'm not sure what your standard is. On the one hand you say morality is up to each individual which, if put into practice, would mean anything goes. On the other you say it's the will of the majority. Or it's some kind of balance between the two which leaves it pretty much up in the air. Further, we know some majorities who are positively evil. But, maybe we'll talk about this another day as you move on to other matters. In the meantime . . . Best wishes, Platt 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/
