From: hampday@earthlink.net
Date: Fri Dec 03 2004 - 08:09:09 GMT
Mark--
If you really want to know what I think, why do you apply all your energies
in an attack mode? Surely, you can't expect to get the best from me with a
stream of insults! If you'll check the various threads on this forum,
you'll see that I happily answer all questions when there is at least a
modicum of conciliation on the part of the questionner. After all, I'm not
under an inquisition here. You've accused me of not reading enough of
Pirsig. How much of MY thesis, I wonder, have YOU read?
OK, let's be positive. Your persistence shows a strong desire for
enlightenment, despite your deplorable tactics. I'll do my best to reveal
what I think on the understanding that I will try to, although cannot
always, support it with empirical evidence.
Incidentally, let me correct myself regarding the application of
"rationality" to the essence of man:
> It was Aristotle, not Socrates, who defined "rationality" as the essence
of man and, to
> my knowledge, no one has since disputed him.
My own thought on this -- which is what you asked for -- is that Value is
the essence of man's reality.
> What have you observed in the behavior of humans and other animals
> that makes you think autonomy is unique to humans? And what makes
> you think non-human animals are irrational?
The ability to reason, it seems to me, includes the capacity to articulate
ideas, evaluate properties and conditions of things experienced, to solve
problems through the use of the intellect, and to control or modify one's
behavior to a level beyond the instinctual or primitive level. Man learns
by an exchange of questions and answers, and by applying his intellectual
skills towards the improvement (betterment) of his surroundings. Animals
exhibit none of these attributes. Their survival is totally dependent on
instinct. They don't discuss philosophy, build bridges, or advance to a
higher culture. Some mammals have tested at relatively high IQs, but you
don't see them changing their habits as a consequence. I would not call
animals "irrational"; I think most zoologists would agree that they are
either non-rational or a-rational creatures. Only man can freely exercise
his will. But "autonomy" implies something more significant to me. Man is
innately free because his rational cognizance precludes the influence of
non-rational absolutes. An "all-knowing" individual would not be a free
creature.
> > ham:
> > We are all selfish by nature; it is not a virtue but a description
> > of man's position in a relational world.
> >
ham:
> I stand by my statement that man is naturally selfish.
>
msh says:
> But I've just provided an argument that refutes this.
No you didn't, Mark. You described an incident of theft, a misdemeanor. So
you've actually confirmed my point that man is selfish.
In fact, I can
> provide evidence and argument that other animals, as well as humans,
> are not naturally selfish. What is your counter-argument?
Selfish is not a very apt term for animal behavior because the concept of
individuality in animals is not well established, if it exists at all. But
if you say that animals can willingly overcome their instincts, I would have
to disagree. (And don't give me your dog-training accomplishments.)
>
msh says:
> Well, I'm not sure what world you live in, but the fallacious "free-
> enterprise" world I experience, day in and day out, constantly
> offends my sensibilities. Deceit in the form of advertising alone
> should and does offend almost everyone, I would say. And this is
> only a small part of the fraud called free enterprise.
I'm sorry that your sensibilities are offended by what most people consider
normal everyday commerce. Having worked
in the advertising field most of my life, I can say that any advertising
program designed to deceive the public will fail, and the product or service
will be left with a black mark that can never be completely erased. What
you most likely take for "deceit" is a headline or proposition designed to
lure or attract the customer. That's marketing's need and, if done
effectively, it promotes sales. I dislike being harrassed by repetitive
ads, too; but I manage to ignore them or simply change the station. On the
other hand, I've seen some TV commercials that are more entertaining than
the programs they sponsor.
msh says:
> In just your posts over the last few days, you have described your
> "primary source" as a Universal Designer, the Unmoved Mover, the
> Divine Creator, the Divine Planner, the Absolute Source, the
> Uncreated Essence, the Master Designer. You've said that man's
> rationality is "the gift of a supernatural Source."
One has to identify the primary source by some name, Mark. These are all
valid metaphors, and the variety allows an author to select one that
communicates a particular function under discussion. Would you agree that
the word "metaphysical" suggests "beyond the physical"? If so, then you
should have no problem understanding that the primary source must be
supernatural. Mr. Pirsig seems to have brainwashed his acolytes into
believing that the concept of a supernatural divinity is not only out-moded
but beneath their dignity. I can't endorse that kind of intellectual
snobbery. If the philosopher is positing a supreme being, why not call it
God? (It would certainly be a better name for the creator than Quality.)
> Whether or not you use the word "God," your belief system is clearly
> theistic. What I find intellectually dishonest is your unwillingness
> to label it as such.
Now that's the supreme insult, Mark, and you know it. You have read theism
into my thesis because I've used descriptive terms typically applied to a
personal god. Only a person who is paranoid about religious inferences
would call me "intellectually dishonest". If you read my thesis, you'll see
that I've scrupulously removed "Being" as an attribute of the creator; hence
Essence is obviously not the Supreme Being of a theist. I've also
referenced the creator as "absolute" and "infinite", which rules out a
divine entity with an extra-terrestrial habitat. I've chosen Essence
advisedly to identify the ineffable because it denotes "source",
"permanence", "real", "ultimate nature", and "essential" -- all of which are
attributes (or their equivalents) for the uncreated source I'm positing.
Technically, Essence is neither a deity nor an "existent"; its transcendence
extends to man, so its value is immanent. Finally, the reality I'm
describing is anthropocentric -- certainly not theocratic.
To sum it up, I'm no more "theistic" than Pirsig is. Additionally, I have
the intellectual honesty to state that my Primary Source is supernatural.
Where have you seen MoQ's author admit that his Quality is supernatural --
despite the fact that he presents it as a heirarchy of transcendent patterns
that have you all mystified?
Enough for now.
Peace,
Ham
>
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Dec 03 2004 - 08:13:50 GMT