Dear Mark --
Let me first say that I have garnered much respect for your
presentations through words. I am certain that this would
only increase if we were to share an afternoon over a cup
of coffee or a beverage of your choice. ...
[Ham, previously]:
So Pirsig's cosmology of Dynamic Quality proceeding on its
unalterable course toward "betterness", and carrying everything
in the universe with it, is not (in your opinion) deterministic.
[Mark]
As you may know, “betterness” is a bit of a tautology since it
can only be described in hindsite when the direction of the
universe is concerned. The same is true for “fitness” as it is
used in the current theory of evolution. I prefer not to get into
that quagmire, but I will say that there is direction, and that
such direction can be seen as positive.
The "positive direction" of the evolving universe is usually called
"teleology" in the vernacular of theism and metaphysics. For me, it
represents the "intelligent design" of a 'Master Plan' that transcends
evolution as well as cause-and-effect. I believe relational existence
serves a metaphysical purpose beyond the human notion of goodness or
morality. We are not privileged to "know" this truth, of course, for such
knowledge would undermine our freedom. It's my theory, however, that we are
created as an "other" to Essence in order to provide an extrinsic
perspective of its Value. Everything we experience in this world, whether
good, bad or indifferent, is a finite representation of Essential Value.
[Our resident nihilist has ridiculed this ontology as "a Creator's need to
be worshipped;" but inasmuch as the value appreciated by the sensible agent
is essentially his own, I take such mockery to be an expression of contempt
for any concept that smacks of "theism".]
[Ham]:
I can accept your statement that there is no morality without intention.
What I cannot accept is that "things interpret morality", or that they
should even need to.
[Mark]:
If man and woman decided not to pair up to form offspring,
there would not be much to talk about now. Yet, I have heard
that parents “choose” to have a child (and indeed they do).
Now, not all parents make this choice. If all hydrogens chose
to pair up with oxygen, this would be a different world altogether,
but they do not. Can you imagine why they do not? Well,
to those misinformed scientists, the concept of probability and
activation energy and environment comes in. Well, this is nice
hand-waving from a distance, but does not address the particular
hydrogen atom in question. As you know, statistics is meaningless
at the individual level.
It's my understanding that scientists rely more on empirical evidence than
"statistics"
for their conclusions, using the latter to corroborate their results.
Animism is a novel way to round out the "universal value" thesis, but as you
yourself said, "One cannot claim morals if there is no intention," and the
MoQ treats value as equivalent to morality. I'm not aware of any
"intention" that isn't conscious. So, unless atoms, rocks and planets
possess some kind of conscious awareness, it is inconceivable that their
behavior could be intentional (valuistic). Again, the dynamic principles of
evolution are teleological -- functions of the Master Plan -- rather than
the whims or preferences of objects themselves.
From a distance, and in geological time, the adventures of man,
the rise and fall of civilizations, the creation and destruction of
cities,
etc, would be seen as highly deterministic, and statistics could be
set up to predict overall behavior. What would be missing would be
the individual’s behavior. In the same way, we consider our cellular
activity to be determined, but don’t tell your pacemaker heart-beat
maker that. If the natural pacemaker fails, another one takes over.
How is that decision made? Who gets the job? Is it purely random?
Maybe, maybe not.
You have more faith in statistics than I do, Mark. What you seem to be
implying is that collective ("overall") behavior is statistically
determinable, whereas individual behavior is not. As I'm not a
statistician, I'll have to defer to your scientific knowledge of the
subject.
Mark now, as it is being written:
What I mean by interpretation is that our present incarnation is
part of something much larger, and cannot stand alone as an
anomaly. While it is pleasant to think that we are God's children
and a plentiful world was provided us, I find that somewhat
dismissive. Also, while it is lofty to consider ourselves as the
creator of what is, such creation must be performed within a
certain context. It is that context which I am discussing. It is
possible to hold subjective creation concepts and its alternatives
at the same time; through amalgamation a much stronger alloy
is made of Thought. For, it is true that two to the power of
exponents is much larger than one to the power of exponents,
where the exponents are arrangements of thought. The use of Three
is, of course, required for the creation of all things, otherwise
we just have two sitting idly by.
You've lost me here, Mark. What is the basis of your axiom that Three is
required for creation?
Perhaps you consider the sunlight as something that is useful to us.
The sun is transformed or interpreted into a concept of "life giving",
and we make it meaningful as a concept. I do not think we can
create the sunlight, but we interpret it through our sensibility as
something that provides warmth. If indeed, as you say, we do
create sunlight through our power of revealing Essence. Then
such power must have its source, for something cannot be created
with nothing. If Essence is the source of our valuation, then we
get into a teleological circle. To continue in an objective fashion,
plants interpret sunlight in another way, and the cyclical nature of
evaporation and precipitation by the planet is yet another interpretation.
Our interpretation of this light is through the form of human thought.
Such thought becomes us, and provides meaning. However,
objectively it would seem to be insufficient and a poor use of Occam's
razor, to claim it is made through the spirit of man.
I think you may have misunderstood my epistemology, Mark. Essence is the
Creator, but "all creation" is not what it appears to be. (I know that what
I'm about to say will sound like Marsha's argument for the Buddhist
'no-self', but bear with me.) What we call "reality" is a world of
appearances actualized by our value-sensibility. The fundamental ground of
existence is being/non-being, which represents Essence in differentiated
(i.e., valuistic) form. Our experience of sunlight is one such valuistic
appearance. We don't "make" the sun or its light, but we do actualize their
physical form and relational properties as "real" existents and perceived
affects. That's the experience; thoughts and intellectual judgments about
the meaning of what we've experienced come later.
It is not a far leap to state that our thoughts of Morality are similar
in principle to the sunlight just described. We could say that
morality is essential for sustaining human life, as we know it, in the
same way that sunshine is. That is, a universal morality is harnessed
to provide us with meaning within a human context. Another
example would be the wind. We do not create the wind (I state
categorically), yet we transform it into a means for propelling a
sailboat. The wind of morality blows through us, and we convert it
to personal meaning. The point, I suppose, is that subjectivism and
objectivism live together in harmony and balance. We create the
world as much as it creates us.
Very eloquently stated, Mark, although the practical benefits you ascribe to
"universal morality" are values I ascribe to Essence (except for the
pragmatic application of wind to power a boat, which I credit to man's
innovative intellect). Tell me though, when that same wind develops
hurricane force and overturns the boat, is it still "moral"?
The physical world is indeed converted into an anthropocentric system,
since it is interpreted by our minds as such. For the world to have
meaning, it must be directly relevant to us. To be relevant, it must
be an extension of us. Again, I would caution against forming a very
fixed notion of cause and effect, since it works both ways. We are
also relevant to the world and actually complete its present existence.
The world cannot exist without you, thus you have purpose both
personally and impersonally. The meaning of life is thus expanded
exponentially.
You have my complete agreement here, despite the differences in our
ontology.
I'll comment on the remainder of your post tomorrow, as this is running too
long and I'm running out of energy.
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/md/archives.html
