From: hampday@earthlink.net
Date: Fri Sep 09 2005 - 06:06:33 BST
Hello Gav --
You've posted a couple of notes referring to my discussion with Platt that
were not specifically addressed me. So I'm not sure if you're seeking my
response or simply stating the MoQ position.
In your previous post you said:
> i dont see how this is different to the MOQ.
> see below for comments
>
> > The "discrete particulars" of existential otherness,
> > like the finite
> > "no-things" that experience them, are transitory
> > phenomena that have meaning
> > only in terms of relative or conditional value. As
> > no-things, we can't be
> > the source of that value; we can only reflect upon
> > it and respond to it as
> > free agents.
>
> man is the measure of all things
I was pleased to learn that my philosophy of Essence had something in common
with Pirsig's MoQ, and Platt liked the aphorism "Man is the measure of all
things".
Since then your opinion seems to have changed:
> i disagree. if consciousness is universal a la
> buddhism (you thing buddhism is wrong too?) then
> experience is universal.
Please understand that I am outlining my own philosophy here, making no
attempt to fit it to the MoQ, Buddhism, or any other philosophy. Most of
the MDers have been around this issue with me before and don't want to
discuss it any more. My personal opinion is that Pirsig needed to make his
Quality concept fill the gap left when he rejected theism; that is, he
needed a primary source to replace God as the teleological force that moves
the cosmos toward "betterness". His solution was to stretch Quality far
beyond its common definition, positing it as "the primary empirical reality
of the world" and infusing it with a universal consciousness, yet declining
to call it the primary source. I'm on record as stating that I consider
this a mistake.
I outlined my concept of Value to Platt as follows:
> My theory is that Value is an experiential manifestation of
> the Essence which is its source. In the life-experience each
> of us identifies with a unique configuration of values that
> relate to these particulars.
You state:
> each of us *is* a unique configuration of values
Essentially, that is correct. Which is why I've said that Value is the
essence of man's reality.
> everything is value: value returns to Value
That's a bit simplistic. Essence has value only to what is not Essence;
i.e., the self-conscious individual. (If you read my thesis, you'll observe
that I've followed in the tradition of Eckhart and Sartre in defining the
self as a "negate".) This, incidentally, is what troubled Platt.
I also said:
> I think this valuistic philosophy goes farther than
> the MoQ in satisfying the individual's need for a
> non-theological belief system. There are several
> reasons why I believe this to be a "sensible" thesis:
You ask:
> can you explain how it goes farther?
I'll return the question. Can you explain how Pirsig's philosophy answers
any of the criteria that I cited for Essentialism?
> 1) It is supported in various ways by visionaries
> such as Eckhart, Plotinus, and Nicholas of Cusa;
> by philosophers like Schopenhauer, Heidegger,
> Hegel, William James, and Allen Watts;
> and by more recent thinkers, including J.A. Wheeler,
> Donald Hoffman, and Phillip Johnson.
>
> 2) It offers a plausible ontology to account for the
> the creation of a differentiated evolutionary world
> by an absolute immutable source.
>
> 3) It introduces an anthropocentric perspective of
> reality based on the autonomy of man as the free
> agent and choicemaker in a deterministic universe.
>
> 4) It proves that Essence cannot be indigenous to
> individuality and relational beingness, and it vindicates
> the inaccessibility of Absolute Truth as consistent
> with the principle of Individual Freedom.
>
> 5) It accommodates the spirituality of religion but
> not the theological dogma, positing Value as the
> essence of man and the inextricable link to his
> creator.
You insist, although admitting that it's questionable:
> value is the creator.
> this is actually a big Q i reckon, is it a problem to
> conflate a creator with the big Q?
Yes, I think it is. I think it is illogical for anyone to assume that a
judgmental reaction to something experienced (by a sensible subject) can be
the creator of the universe.
> okay on one hand yes, cos you are limiting the
> unlimited, differentiating the undifferentiated,
> making the dynamic static.
> but if consciousness is the mode of existence of
> quality then perhaps it is helpful to think of one big
> unified consciousness, of which we are all a 'reduced'
> (or regulated) version of. is this a step towards a
> creator?hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
There is no "one big Consciousness". We've gone around this before, too.
The very design of existence is to individuate (isolate) the "evaluator" as
an autonomous agent. Man is as immutably individuated as Essence is
immutably absolute.
May I suggest that you read my thesis www.essentialism.net, and then come
back to me with your questions or criticisms?
Nice meeting you, Gav
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 Sep 09 2005 - 06:20:53 BST