Hello John --
Responding to my statement that man invents morality. rather than the other
way
around, you said:.
But that point is the point with which I disagree. It makes more sense
that the moral structure of the cosmos produces man, who retains
recognition in his being of this intrinsic morality. Read Arlo's post on
abduction and synthesize it with Lanza's theory of Biocentrism and
that's about as good as I can see for a definition of good.
[Arlo, quoting Wikipedia]:
"Abduction is a method of logical inference introduced by Charles
Sanders Peirce which comes prior to induction and deduction for
which the colloquial name is to have a "hunch". Abductive reasoning
starts when an inquirer considers of a set of seemingly unrelated facts,
armed with an intuition that they are somehow connected. The term
abduction is commonly presumed to mean the same thing as hypothesis;
however, an abduction is actually the process of inference that
produces a hypothesis as its end result"
This is specious semantic hype that has nothing to do with goodness or value
sensibility.
Besides, I don't share Arlo's view because I believe Quality (Value) is
sensed individually and does not need a "social context" to be realized.
Also, Lanza is a biologist who hasn't addressed moral (quality) issues in
anything I've read.
The distinction is between morality and freedom. You say you couldn't
have freedom if there was intrinsic morality and I say you couldn't have
freedom UNLESS there was intrinsic morality.
Additionally I don't understand why you think an intrinsic morality
forces morality, anymore than intrinsic gravity forces one big black hole.
Plainly gravity is intrinsic; plainly the planets and stars spin around
each other and don't "obey" the gravitational pull.
Planets orbit their 'sun' stars by centripetal force, according to the laws
of gravity, in the same way that you hurl a ball tethered to a string around
you. But the point I am trying to make is that there is no morality without
the freedom to choose. Planets, robots, trees, and cellular organisms have
no choice. They procreate or behave as programmed by Nature (the universe)
without the sense or knowledge of what might be better. Man is sensible to
value -- good and bad -- and has the intellect to organize his world and
culture according to his choice.
But I'd like to look a little more at freedom and morality and
compare these two concepts from different perspectives.
You use the word "because" - which is always problematic for me,
as I don't see causation as fundamental. Freedom and morality
seems to me to be one of those mutually arising, mutually
interdependent terms - you can't have choice unless you
have Quality; you can't have Quality if you don't have choice.
The word "because" doesn't always imply causation. Unless specifcally
referencing ontogeny, it is a conjunctive word meaning "since" or "inasmuch
as" as related to stated premises. And, again, you are making my point:
Freedom and morality ARE linked "inasmuch as" you can't have one without the
other.
Furthermore, if we observe the levels of existence as Pirsigians
postulate,
we see a clear continuum of freedom of choice from the inorganic rocks to
the philosophically dancing chemistry prof. Just because man has the
most
choice, doesn't mean that nothing else has any - it's a continuum, not a
sharp dividing line. If sharp dividing lines between man and the cosmos
exist, then SOM reigns.
But then, I have a feeling you know that and are just baiting me and us
all.
So there's my nibble.
Well, it so happens that I do not "observe the levels of existence
Pirsigians postulate," nor does anyone else. A postulate is a premise
asserted about a phenomenon whose operating principle can't be observed or
known. (If it could be observed, it would be an empirical fact.)
S/O reigns in existence, except that it's not metaphysics. And the
concomitant presence of value sensibility and rationality that affords man
free choice is unique in the animal kingdom. (I reject animism in all its
guises.)
No, John, I'm not "baiting" you or anyone. I don't play those games. I
simply tell it as I see it.
Essentially yours,
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/
