Ham: I don't understand the proposition "humans are value...galaxies are value". Value is a measure of worth or quality, and man is the measure of all things. Aesthetic appreciation is the individual's response to value, and is always relative to some objective referent. There is no such thing as unappreciated (unrealized) value. I accept the idea of Teleology as what "pushes or pulls" the cosmos through evolution, but I believe it's a mistake to call this "value", whether or not human beings are part of it.
The problem, as I see it, stems from Pirsig's refusal to acknowledge a primary metaphysical reality -- the uncreated Source. Empirical reality is divided so that a subject can sense value (e.g., goodness, quality, beauty, freedom, etc.) from which to objectivize a differentiated universe. Mark 04:02-07: Hi Ham, The primary empirical reality for Pirsig is DQ. This reality does not contain any static differentiation's such as the subject or the object of experience. But Leslie is a long way from Pirsig's position anyway, and it is Leslie i am talking about. Leslie appeals to cosmology and current scientific theories to support his philosophy, which is a harmonising of western philosophical traditions. [Mark]: > The principle of ethical requirement in Leslie's Axiarcism > is drawn from Plato. Its application is Neo-Spinozist > so Leslie is advocating Pantheism, which boils down to > a form of Idealism the way he describes it. Ham: You see, I believe that morality and ethics are human inventions designed to preserve civilized cultures by establishing standards of behavior. It would be difficult to apply such standards to lesser creatures who behave instinctively, or to natural processes that behave according to physical principles. For example, can the laws of thermo-dynamics, gravity, relativity, or entropy logically be considered "good" or "bad"? Efficacious, consistent, predictable, empirically verifiable, perhaps -- but not moral or ethical. Such concepts apply only to people. As awe-inspiring as the design of the universe may be, its "rightness" or "goodness' can only be determined relative to its ultimate goal or purpose, and this is beyond human measurement. Mark 04:02-07: I understand your position Ham. Your position is not unusual. [Mark]: > Leslie is happy to deal with a multiplicity of Universes > of which ours is as we experience it. > This undercuts the Anthropic principle because if there > are an infinite number of Universes it should come as > no surprise that one was like ours - finely tuned to be > as we experience it. Ham: This sounds very much like the singularity principle operating in chaos: Given sufficient time, the dynamics of energy and matter will eventually produce a self-sustaining universe with intelligent life. Extend the law of probability to infinity, and a monkey sitting at a word processor will eventually come up with the complete works of Shakespeare. If your description of Leslie's philosophy is correct, he's apparently as averse as Pirsig is to the idea of a transcendent primary source. Mark 04:02-07: I think you may be conflating the probable with the ethically required? The problem as Leslie argues it with the probable is it generates allot of worthless rubbish. But worthless is measured in terms of value, so he is suggesting values are prior to human invention and indeed ontologically primary as thoughts in an infinite number of divine minds. Ham: Also, you're begging the question when you say that Leslie's willingness to deal with an infinite number of universes "undercuts the Anthropic principle." What if this is the only universe? I'm sorry, Mark, but I put more value than you do on human sensibility. The only cosmology that makes sense to me is a universe differentiated so that finite beings can realize the value of their essential source. Accordingly, I remain on the side of Anthropism in the good company of John Witherall, Paul Davies, and (probably) Nicholas Rescher. Mark 04:02-07: Don't shoot the messenger Ham. I'm reporting Leslie as well as i may within the limitations of a post. One of the interesting aspects of multiple universes may be that humans are not the best there is. My arrogance does not prevent me from considering this a possibility. All the best, Mark (If you learn anything more about Rescher, I'd appreciate the information.) Thanks, again, for your clarification. 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/
