[Ham]
> If you will reciprocate with a summation of your own worldview, we'll can > see where the differences in our thinking lie. That should give us a > productive rationale to work on. > groan. summation of my worldview - I'm still forming it... ok, as long as you understand it is still in development (and hopefully always will be) I agree with the the MoQ in its most fundamental form, with the self-evident existence of Good as the primary generator of reality and the universe itself as having a moral structure. I get this from Pirsig and Royce, who I see as complimentary philosophers pointing to the same fundamental truth but Royce being more classical in his approach - having the more comprehensive philosophy and Pirsig expressing the same truth more romantically - more artfully and in a more updated and easy to read form. But both pointing to the fundamentalness of value. From there, my own philosophical stance is always relative. I joke with my wife that of course I'm always right, because if you ever prove me wrong, I'll change my mind immediately and be right again. Thus I adopt the best philosophical stance I can, believing that "best" is actually a meaningful term and not just my own subjective preference, but believing fully as Jacob Needham says, that the universe can be viewed AS a teaching - that this moral structure of reality is apprehensible to me and knowable in a satisfying and fully fulfilling way. _that last bit is pure Royce, btw. But I equate it with Pirsig's assertion that even tho Quality is definitionally undefinable, You apprehend it. Needham's microcosm/macrocosm is helpful here. Finally, I was philosophically born in deep ecology and I believe fully that Nature is the best teacher of value. In our close relation with Nature, we come closest to the Quality that made us and made nature too. My philosophy of nature as our source of value is inclusive of creationist - who ought to worship nature as the most direct expression of their God, or evolutionist - who ought to know and understand the cosmic rhythms of the whirling maelstrom which produced them. In other words, atheist or religionist, our natural roots are what we have in common and the ultimate source of all our meaning and being. Deep Ecology is critical of human-centered ecology teachings which "value" nature. We don't value nature, nature values us. That's my worldview in summation. At this time. Good luck making any sort of "productive rationale" tho. Lord knows I've tried... -- ------------ Self is simply Choice, so choose good ------------ 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/
