On Fri, Jun 12, 2009 at 11:35 PM, Ham Priday <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Two questions: > 1) If goodness is intrinsic to reality, where does 'not-so-good' come from?
This question is answered by Royce: Evil is real and part of the good. The absolute perfection of the totality of existence includes the process of overcoming evil. The ultimate perfection of the good is realized in the struggle to overcome evil. The way I interpret in the light of the MoQ is that Good would be completely static if not for the necessity of overcoming evil. The process of overcoming evil is what makes dynamic quality dynamic. > > 2) If morality is univcrsal, how do you account for man's immorality and > the destructive acts of nature?. Similar question as above. Same answer, almost. Except I don't view acts of nature as "destructive" I mean, they destroy the works of man, but that is not the same thing as immorality. > >> > That value is fundamental to man there can be no doubt. That it is > fundamental to nature is problematic for me. Is man part of nature? He possesses a dynamic intellect which he uses to to dissassociate himself from nature, but I would put such thoughts in the "immorality" category. > 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 meant "Jacob Needleman", not "Needham", btw. Let me quote a little of him at you and tell me when we lose you: "Man is the universe in miniature- such is the bare statement of the idea of the microcosm. But as our conception of the universe is dictated to us by the scientific world view, the idea in this bald form adds nothing to our self-understanding. In this form, the idea tells us only that the same laws and substances that govern and constitute the stars also govern and constitute the human organism. But what kind of laws? What kind of substances?" So Ham, atoms and rocks do respond to laws of physics and these laws are statements of value. That seems simple enough. Needlman again: But more than that, there are the laws that govern all these processes, the intelligence that adapts, reacts, creates and destroys within ever larger and more fundamental scales of intelligence and law. Is this intelligence, this all-penetrating hierarchy of purposeful law, something that is only of the earth? Or does it not pervade the whole of reality?" And finally in summation: "In whatever sense and whatever way all this is in man, it is not in my life or in my awareness. I, this individual person, pursue my life nowhere near an awareness in myself of this incredible spectrum of time, force and structure, not to mention the intelligence that governs it from without and within. This realization is the key to the idea of the microcosm: Man is a microcosm, but I am not that man." > 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. Evidently not. Deep Ecology is specifically a non-anthropocentric philosophy. What man "learns" in his intellectual study of nature is by way of analogy and distance from reality. The closer man's analogies get to "the real thing" the higher quality we accord his thoughts. But simple animals do not "learn" or analogise. They experience directly the cosmic harmonies we struggle to attain. I'm gonna write more on this in a thread dedicated to Arlo's and my discussion of dogs and love. Watch for it! > 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. You say Nature is our beingness, but that's not a metaphysical perspective? I see the physical world as an ordering of energies in shifting interrelationship. Zen tech koan: What is more important? Hardware or software? Answer: It's all software. It's all ordered, programatic, dynamic relationship, even the things which seem static and fixed are only that way from a certain PoV. > >> > 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. Good news! I am easily satisfied with whatever theory I hold at the moment, while remaining open to refinement. The open question is whether I will find harmony with other's theories or not. Ontologically yours, John ------------ 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/
