Horse and Struan and all,
It is hard for me to sit here and keep my mouth shut so I will just jump
in.
All of the philosophers so far have not given us any final answers, not
even Eric Hoffer. As I see it Pirsig has potentially given us everything we
need to place ourselves in the universe and to guide us in our actions. To
my knowledge he is the first person who has done that.
1. Is direct, everyday experience, synonymous with intuition?
When Pirsig says that "The physical order of the universe is also the
moral order of the universe" I think he means just that. We cannot define
Quality because its beginning is mystic. I have no idea why or how the
universe started. Once it did start and "the physical order of the universe
is also the moral order" became a true statement then "the good" became
definable and discoverable. In order to be perfectly clear we must separate
Quality and "Good, value, etc" in our minds because Quality is the driving
force behind the universe that CAUSES Good, value, etc. Quality is good but
it is not "the good". The more we can know of the organization of the
universe the more we will understand "the good".
In my mind this means that empiricism (science), including observation, is
the backbone of our understanding of the universe. Intuition or subliminal
leaps of awareness and understanding arising from direct experience,
observation, or previous knowledge of the universe can also be valid
pathways to further understanding. Direct, everyday experience can lead to
intuitive leaps in understanding but there are other sources of intuition
also.
2.Can we ascertain what is good from empirical evidence?
Yes, it is the most valid way we have of ascertaining what is good. All
of our valid understanding of what is good (or the operation of the
physical universe) is based on either observation or physical evidence
gained through science. If I look back through the religions of the past,
and the present, I can see no unambiguous or undiluted good that has been
produced by any of them. None of them provides a clear, rational guide for
our conduct in the universe in the way that the MoQ does.
3.If we can, then how?
If we accept Pirsig's statement "the physical order of the universe is
also the moral order of the universe" then the only way that we can
perceive good in the physical universe is from empirical evidence or what
arises from empirical evidence or observation such as intuition, subliminal
leaps of imagination, and so forth.
4. How does 2. and 3. square with non-naturalism?
If we define non-naturalism as being purely mystical and not based on any
input from previous knowledge arising from empiricism or observation, or
any other valid source, then non-naturalism is not a valid source of
knowledge of the "good" universally speaking.
Notice that so far we have been speaking solely of the "the good" in
terms of the physical universe. No mention has been made of "sentience". It
is when we try to define "the good" in terms of humanity that the cheese
gets binding.
It seems obvious to me that "the good" in universal terms does not always
square with "the good" in human terms. I cannot say that a tornado,
earthquake, tidal wave, meteor strike, etc, are good in human terms
although they will be good in universal terms. In my mind this the point at
which we begin to separate universal Quality from sentient Quality. Up
until now Pirsig's statement "the physical order of the universe in also
the moral order of the universe" is a true statement. If we include
humanity in the above statement then it becomes much more problematical. At
this point we begin to see Pirsig's statment in terms of humanity and begin
to try to twist it around to make it fit humanity instead of the other way
around. It can't be easily done.
I can't remember this point being addressed in Lila. I believe that Pirsig
also saw this difficulty and brought in his "Many Truths" idea to reconcile
humanity with physicality. It is a good idea and will work to some extent
between humanity and physicality but mainly it is useful for sorting out
the conflicts within sentience. It is the necessary idea for completing the
MoQ and makes the MoQ potentially capable of being a complete philosophy
encompassing the whole universe including us. What a dazzling display of
reasoning. What we need to do now is to make the statement "the physical
order of the universe is also the moral order of the universe" apply
seamlessly to the whole ball of wax. Ken
MOQ Online Homepage - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Unsubscribe - http://www.moq.org/md/index.html
MD Queries - horse@wasted.demon.nl
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:02:59 BST