From: Platt Holden (pholden@sc.rr.com)
Date: Wed Mar 02 2005 - 22:14:35 GMT
Hi Joe,
> On Thursday 24 February 2005 2"41 PM Platt writes to Marsha and All:
>
> [Platt] So what is it to be? Truth and morality based on experience and
> reason, i.e., what is commonly thought of as comprising the intellectual
> level, or truth and morality founded on personal feelings of liking and not
> liking that bubble up from the biological level? Or, is some combination
> workable?
>
> [Platt] I look to the group for answers. The nihilistic answer, that
> existence is
> senseless and useless, doesn't "feel right" to me.
First, thanks for responding to my question. To date, no one else has
offered an opinion. That said, I'm baffled by some of your comments.
> IMO 'Feelings' is a word much open to variable interpretations. I think of
> the levels of evolution as proposed by Pirsig and ways to discuss them in
> more precise terms. All levels described by Pirsig have evolved from the
> inorganic level through three barriers or boundaries. They all originate in
> the inorganic level.
This suggests that a form of primitive intellect exists at the inorganic
level that emerges as fully developed in humans. Is this your view?
> The inorganic level is like variations in gravity. Something evolves from
> gravity becoming another level. I think purpose best describes the first
> break through gravity. The movement to eat evolves the organic level. An
> interpretant of that purpose I call 'sensation'. The organic level is like
> variations in purpose.
This raises the question, "How can purpose evolve from a nonpurposeful
gravity?"
> Something evolves from 'purpose' becoming another level. I think
> 'existence' best describes that first break through purpose. The movement
> to order evolves the social level. Mother, father, child are interpretants
> of that existence I call 'emotion'. The social level is ordered by a center
> of gravity in existence. She is president. The social level has its center
> of gravity in interpretations of the order of existence. The nose knows!
This I don't understand.
> Something evolves from 'existence' becoming another level. I think
> unfinished s/o describes that first break through existence. Creation in
> the intellectual order flows from the sense of 'unfinished', I want to do
> more. Creation has its center of gravity in thoughts through the sense of
> 'unfinished'. Order leads to creation by awareness.
This baffles me, too.
> Morality is based on a proper ordering of actions of gravity, purpose,
> order, creation. Sensations, feelings and thoughts are interpretants of
> morality. IMO truth and morality as either from experience and reason i.e.,
> what is commonly thought of as comprising the intellectual level, or
> founded on personal feelings of liking and not liking that bubble up from
> the biological level is unanswerable.
So my question whether truth and morality should be based on reason or
feelings or a combination of both is unanswerable. You may be right. If we
look to Pirsig for an answer, we come up empty. On one hand he says
reason can guide us to morality. On the other he says feelings can guide
us to truth. I have trouble reconciling the two.
Platt
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 : Wed Mar 02 2005 - 22:13:11 GMT