It’s hard for me to know whether there is anything about this value metaphysics that would be less consistent than the underlying STEM that many theists seem to subscribe to. But I don’t see anything in the negatives column since Pirsig’s metaphysics uncludes STEM as intellectualpatterns describing inorganic paterns.
The “goal” of “seeing reality” is not to see everything as good, but to distinguish that which IS good from that which IS evil.
Any evil comes into this scenario when the question of WHY the living being is “set out in the sun to decay”.
Biological pleasure is not a “moral good”, because it doesn’t involve a CHOICE. Morals imply a choice between good and evil.
No moral good can possibly be evil. Definitionally. Period.
Once again, to WANT to see anything that one can look at as being “good” is a retreat from reality.
Are you equating “this reality” with “this material universe”?
My understanding is that for theists, the universe is God’s creation, and God pronounced it good.
Evil can be understood as a lower level trying to subordinate a higher level, e.g. vice is understood as biological value that is a threat to the social order and must be controlled, human rights are protecting intellectual value from domination by social patterns of genocide, censorship, sacrificing the one for the many.
Pirsig’s philosphy is not relativism. He establishes an empirically based moral hierarchy of value levels which places intellectual value above social value with is above biological value which is about death.
I am using a broader unstanding of the word “moral” than is commonly used. Biological pleasure is still value just as moral value is value. Usually when we talk about morals, we are talking about the social-biological code, but the intellectual-social code usually referred to as “human rights” is certainly moral as well. When you start thinking about the universe as composed of value rather than substance, what we end up with is a moral order.
Pleasure is good. Pain is bad. Biologically these are vale words.
I agree, but in the metaphysics of quality your statement translate into “biological pleasure is an evil when satisfying it conflicts with social value.” This is the biological-social moral code usually associated with vice.
That is not the goal. The goal is to get in touch with the reality that the mystics point to.
Pleasure is biological value. Truth is intellectual value.
The value that I’m talking about is not just about pain and pleasure. It is about sensing truth (intellectual value) and authority (a social value) and gravity (an inorganic value) as well.
This is no definition of philosophical materialism that I ever heard of.
There are two types of people, those who try to put everyone into one of two neat little boxes of their own creation, and those who don’t.
The unfallen world was created good (and very good). The fallen world is “fallen” (flawed), and one of it’s flaws is that evil exists in it, created by God’s free-will-possesing creatures (demonic-angels and man).
I’m glad to see you are a disciple of a master, although I have my doubts as to the value of your master.
The moral good or evil is determined at the point of the choice made.
Well, I guess you don’t have to if you don’t want to. From what I’m seeing, it’s just a play-on-words thing. Even Lila says you don’t to do it. It just seems to make things easier to understand for her.
And it’s perfectly relative in that it values what it (relatively) calls “intellectual values” above what it (relatively) calls “social values” above what it (relatively) calls “biological” values.
Hello, Leela:
Which is why you are a relativist, and an epicurean one at that.
) weapon of intimidation, means by “Biologically these are vale words.”if you choose to disregard commonly accepted science in order to develop a personal spirituality thats fine. many people do such a thing, but the tone of your posts led me to believe that you were proposing this personal spirituality as a form of metaphysics, that is what piqued my interest.
that is refuted by the existence of billions of years worth of life in which no humans existed, i.e dinosaurs, trilobites, etc.
that seems to be the ultimate goal of theology, as a Catholic i
as i said above i took you to mean that you had a metaphysical system of belief, i wanted to know what evidence you had to support your beliefs. i understand now that i mistook your posts as metaphysical arguments.
I would state it thusly, “compel > cause > value > worth”.
Why not? It works just as well, if not better, on the levels you mention.
Sure they can!
OK. Follow this: I am walking down the street. A fellow comes along and says to me, “Read book A”. He gives me no reason. No compulsion, if you will. Yet, I find the book and read it. I have completely “compelled” myself to do this, as there were no values to perceive or to calculate on.
Exactly. I think you’re getting on board with me.
None. I HATE sleep.
C’mon; it’s just an expression. It merely means, love Him a lot.
(See immediately above.)
If we can’t get around it, then, what’s our solution?
But, you see, it is precisely this that is the proximate cause of people’s confusion.
Exactly, so why keep using that system of speech?
But, that’s not the intellect. The “intellect” is simply another name for the “analytical” part of the mind.
We keep stressing “A particular pattern of thought”. What if it’s just one thought?
OK, this handles the death, or utter destruction, of the “container”. What about my question regarding physiological damage, say, for instance from electroshock therapy, where the “container” has not been utterly destroyed?
But your adverbs are confusing. It’s like saying green isn’t wet.
As a pilot, I have seen lots of leading edges.They all consisted of the aluminum wrapped around the front edges of aircraft wings.
I think you have this backwards: it should be stated, “What is not experienced cannot be valued.”
If you mean what I mean by the term, then, yes.
True, to some extent, but, cats and dogs are not responsible for those complexities. They contain them per accidens, not per se.
This clearly adds another layer of confusion!
Then how is quality so different from observer to observer?
It’s hard for me to “see” this yet.
Of course. But, the word still does not convey the power and authority of the word “compel”! Maybe it’s a “male” thing, but, men have as much affinity for girly words as we do for “manly” words. Now if you take money, and try to exchange my two dimes for your two nickles (because they’re larger, for example) I will immediately see through that charade.
Of course, why mention this?
Why do you mention this?
May I repeat, “I am compelled to believe it, because it is true.”
At last.
I asked this question of you in another post but here is the answer. Very good. You do realize that you are attempting to prove the existence of God here? St. Thomas posits God as the ultimate rung, so to speak, of hierarchies of being. You posit “freedom”. Why “freedom” and not “God”?
All you have done is to say, “I assert that ‘value’ is now a qualifier word that may be used in the metaphysical dimension of philosophy.” Gosh, I have to say this again, but, there is no demonstration (proof) for this assertion, in the manner you mean it. Of course, “value” has always been a usable adverb in Metaphysics.
Follow this assertion down its slippery slope and there is no reason to believe anything. If your GF, or your wife, tells you she “loves you”, you could simply retort, “I don’t believe you.” If your friend, in the passenger seat of your car, tells you you are about to hit a tree, there’s no reason to believe him. There would be no certitude. Triangles could just a easily be squares.
Absurd. The reality of real objects does NOT depend upon our senses and our minds.
Well, you didn’t ask this question of me, but, I’d like to take a crack at it, as they say: the goal of philosophical discussion is to start out with conundrums and end up with answers to them. To go from darkness into light - to be enlightened. But, no one wants to be enlightened with falsity. “Falsity” does no one any good, except in the rarest of instances. Otherwise, our discussions could merely be random word-strings between people, and no one wants to listen to meaningless drivel.