Greetings, Adrie --
On Mon, April 15, 2013 5:51 PM, Adrie Kintziger wrote:
(Ham's proposal)....
As for my motivation in presenting this concept ("particular tastes"?)
here, the reason is simple enough. There is an obvious parallel
between these two valuistic philosophies which deserves to be
explored for the benefit of both. What stands in the way is
inflexibility on the part of the debaters. Nothing is gained by a
discussion like this unless or until the protagonists are willing to
seriously consider each other's premises.
(Adrie's response)...
Well, this is a nice gesture. Noblesse oblige.
If you are so noble and honest to challenge the other debaters
to give you the benefit of the doubt, you should present at least
one or two chapters from your book here in the open , so we can
shred it to pieces like you do with Pirsigs work.
For my part, i'm interested in the chapter 'Amoral Universe' ....cant'
hardly wait to piss myself. even without reading it,
i can hear the angels singing 'bout the absolute source.
There is no chapter with that specific title, Adrie, but I'm happy to
provide a brief explanation as to why the universe is amoral. ...
First of all, it is empirically evident that earthquakes, tornados,
tsunamis, famine, disease, and genetic deformities occur periodically and
cause much suffering on this planet. This is neither moral nor immoral; it
is simply indicative of the range of values to which we 'earth creatures'
are exposed.
Secondly, the notion that Morality exists independently of man's sensibility
and guides the universe to "betterness" makes no sense from a metaphysical
viewpoint. If Value (Quality) is an attribute of an uncreated Source that
transcends space/time, as I've suggested, there is no need for that Source,
or the universe it designs, to "evolve toward betterness". Indeed, Essence
is already immutable in its absolute perfection!
Finally, goodness and evil are moral polarities of the law of contradiction
which applies to all existential process. If we didn't experience evil, we
wouldn't recognize goodness. If we didn't feel pain or sorrow, we would be
oblivious of pleasure or joy. If we were not awed by the magnificent, we
would be unaware of the trite. In other words, Value would be unrealizable,
and morality inconceivable.
But we DO realize Value; it is the very purpose of our existence as sensible
agents. In fact, it is my theory that man, as a sensible being, affords
Essence the means by which the Value of Essence may be realized autonomously
and without bias.
If this simple argument causes you to wet your pants, maybe it's the
excitement of gaining some insight that never occurred to you before.
Incidentally, while I've expressed some differences with Pirsig's thesis, I
doubt that my criticisms have ever risen to the level of "shredding his work
to pieces".
Anyway, I'll refrain from boring this august group with quotations from my
book. at least until the senior members give me permission to do so.
Essentially speaking,
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
