John --
(...summarizing his worldview, with the caveat that it is still "in
development"):
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. ...
What is "self-evident" to me is that there is both Good and Evil, plus a
range of value(s) in between.
Two questions:
1) If goodness is intrinsic to reality, where does 'not-so-good' come from?
2) If morality is univcrsal, how do you account for man's immorality and the
destructive acts of nature?.
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.
That value is fundamental to man there can be no doubt. That it is
fundamental to nature is problematic for me. One can say that sunlight is
"valuable" to plants which photo-synthesize its energy for growth, or that
gravity is "valuable" in that it allows run-off of water which prevents
flooding and soil erosion. One may view "survival of the fittest" as a
"valuable principle of nature", since it weeds out weak or inferior species.
But "value" in such a context is euphemistic, since only man is aware of it.
Unless you understand value as a teleological goal of nature (in which case
evolution to betterness is a "valued" by a Creator), I fail to see how
quality or value applies to the inanimate world. If you believe, as others
do here, that atoms and rocks "respond to value", you've already lost me.
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.
Finally, I was philosophically born in deep ecology and
I believe fully that Nature is the best teacher of value.
For whom is this "value teaching" of the universe intended? Does it teach
the planets, the molecules, the trees, or the genes of living organisms?
Simple animals may "learn" from nature. But only human beings can discern
value in the design of the universe or create their own morality systems.
This is why I agree with Protagoras that "man is the measure of all things"
and that the universe is anthropocentric. Evidently you do not.
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.
I hesitate to mention it, but this Nature worship recalls the philosophy
espoused by the recently removed member of this forum. The Sun God of the
ancient Egyptians and Aztecs also comes to mind. When Nature is equated
with Reality, there can be no metaphysical perspective. Nature is our
beingness, but it's only the "extrapolated" half of our existence, as you
yourself conceded. I do believe that Pirsig groomed his philosophy to be
compatible with empirical knowledge. It would appear that you also are
content to limit Reality to the physical world.
That's my worldview in summation. At this time.
Good luck making any sort of "productive rationale" tho.
Lord knows I've tried.
I sense that you are actively searching, which is commendable. It may take
some time, but you will eventually arrive at a theory that resolves the
enigma of existence to your satisfaction. You will come to sense that
ontology as your supreme value.
Thanks for the summation, John. At this juncture, there's little point in
further dialogue until we resolve the questions I posed above. Let me know
when you've got the answers.
Best wishes,
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/
