From: Mark Steven Heyman (markheyman@infoproconsulting.com)
Date: Mon Aug 16 2004 - 03:27:53 BST
On 15 Aug 2004 at 4:05, hampday@earthlink.net wrote to msh:
msh said:
In response to Ham's contention that his concept of Immanent Essence
is an original metaphysical contribution, I pasted his thesis into
my word processor and replaced "Immanent Essence" with "Dynamic
Quality"; I also replaced the single word "immanent" with "dynamic"
and the single word "Essence" with "Quality." For those of us
familiar with the MOQ, this results in NO significant change in
meaning. I invite others to perform the same replacement and see if
they agree.
ham:
That's a fascinating way to analyze a thesis, and it avoids having to
read it for the meaning intended.
msh says:
You misunderstand. The substitution came AFTER I'd read and analysed
your thesis, and realized the startling similarity to the MOQ. This
similarity should not surprise you, as Pirsig himself remarked on it.
Also, there is fine precedent for this substitution method of
metaphysical analysis: Phaedrus does it near the end of ZMM. He
reads the Tao Te Ching, substituting his word "Quality" for "Tao"
throughout, discovering a perfect correlation. Quality is the Tao.
Unfortunately, you didn't read that far. :-)
As I mentioned above the substitution works for the those of us who
are more or less comfortable with the MOQ. It could be that it only
works for me, which is why I'd be interested in feedback from others.
The substitution doesn't work for you because you are using the
dictionary definitions of "dynamic" and "quality" not Pirsig's. If
you are not familiar with Pirsig's use of these words then, perhaps,
it is you who should be asking the questions.
ham:
For example, the word "immanent" (meaning "in the mind" as opposed to
"in the objective world") does not relate in any way to "dynamic"
(continuously active or changing), nor should it need to.
msh:
This is what I mean about using dictionary definitions. In the MOQ,
"dynamic" means much more than just "active" or "changing." Quality
is Dynamic in the instant of experience, before conceptualization. It
is at this point that DQ becomes immanent, in your sense.
Let's just paste in a couple of your sentences and I'll add the MOQ
equivalents to your terms, as I see them; we'll see if others in the
group see the similarity, of if I'm just out the window on this:
ham Q1:
"In its broadest sense, Essentialism [MOQ] is any philosophy that
acknowledges the primacy of Essence [Quality]. Others, myself
included, see it as the inevitable reaction to scientific materialism
which in its methodological denial of subjective [and moral] reality
has virtually rejected the possibility of an immanent Essence
[Dynamic Quality]. "
ham Q2:
"The fact that subjectivity [and morality] is essential [of highest
value] to any reality concept keeps philosophy alive in an era when
"valid research" generally implies that the objects of investigation
have been conveniently removed from the human perspective. It is a
fundamental precept of Essentialism [MOQ] that facts and laws are
meaningless without cognizant sensibility. But a philosophy of
immanent Essence [Dynamic Quality] must earn the respect of
society—including the scientific community—if it is to contend
favorably with prevailing ideologies."
ham continues:
Also, I do not equate Essence with Quality [Value] because Value is
only a conditional (finite) aspect of Essence.
msh says:
I believe Pirsig equates Quality with "the highest Value." He's not
saying that individual value judgements are always, or even often,
perfect reflections of capital Q Quality, because, to use your phrase
with substitution, they are only conditional, finite aspects of
Quality. That is, value judgements vary with, and are often limited
to, the individuals making them.
msh said:
This is not to say that there is no difference between the
two philosophies. Ham's metaphysics is a not so thinly disguised
theism. This is clear form Ham's most recent exchange with Platt as
well as from his talk of a "Master Plan" and a "Creator" and freedom
as a "divine gift" to man.
Ham's theism is further revealed in his thesis's closing paragraph,
where we are admonished to pick the God side of Pascal's wager.
Though some will say such a choice is prudent, it's always seemed to
me the route of the intellectual coward.
ham:
I am not an atheist, and would not object to being called a "theist"
if were an accurate label. Runes Dictionary defines "theism" as "a
conception of God as a unitary being"; inasmuch as I consider
"beingness" a construct of man's mind that separates him from the
ultimate reality, I reject the notion that it applies to Essence.
msh says:
I don't understand. Are you saying that Essence is the ultimate
reality, but that it doesn't exist? How else should we interpret the
idea that Beingness doesn't apply to Essence?
ham said:
Inthe "Freedom" essay I use the terms "master plan" and "divine gift"
euphemistically in order to hypothesize the perspective of the
Creator.
msh says:
But are you using the word "Creator" euphemistically? That's the
question.
ham:
I have not "admonished" the reader to choose God; I quoted
Pascal who suggests that it is the winning side of the gamble. And,
whatever has possessed you to regard belief in God as the mark of a
"coward"?
msh says:
It's not cowardly to believe in God. It's cowardly to choose to
believe in God because you're afraid of going to hell if you don't.
msh earlier:
Despite the fact that "Quality" and "Essence" are interchangeable in
Ham's written thesis,
ham:
Again, that is not true. The Value referred to my thesis is man's
psycho-emotional sensibility to Essence; hence I've said that "Value
is the essence of man's reality". But they are not equivalent in my
concept.
msh:
I think I've shown that "Quality" and "Essence" are interchangeable.
See quotes and discussion of Value above. Also, your description of
Value as "man's psycho-emotional sensibility to Essence" red lines my
jargon meter. I think I prefer the definition you offered above,
embellished with my MOQ equivalent.
ham:
I don't know how Quality relates to an "a prori source" in
Pirsig's philosophy because he hasn't presented us with one.
msh says:
Huh? Quality IS the "a prior source."
msh earlier:
Ham insists that Quality is secondary to
Essence, and that "Essence is the uncreated, undifferentiated and
absolute Source that most people would call God." According to Ham,
Pirsig would have a complete metaphysics if he would only "accept
Essence as the source of Quality."
But setting Essence above Quality serves no metaphysical purpose,
other than to make room for a "Creator" with a "Master Plan" which
includes freedom as a "divine gift" to man. Saying that Quality by
itself doesn't have the gumption to bootstrap it's own existence,
but that Essence does, is just a word game searching for the
"Primary Mover." As we all know the "Primary Cause" argument for
the existence of God fails because all it succeeds in doing is
extending the causal chain infinitely backward. In other words
setting Essence above Quality complicates the metaphysics, without
adding any explanatory value.
ham:
How about teleology, which is "purpose" itself, Mark?
msh says:
Ok. Now I understand why you think the MOQ is incomplete. You want
it to make room for "purpose" or "the divine plan." It's always been
a mystery to me how it is that just because people see purpose in
their daily lives (or rather create purpose for themselves) they are
driven to conclude that life itself must have a purpose. This is
just childishly poor anthropomorphic reasoning, IMO. To me, one of
the great strengths of the MOQ's evolutionary theory is its denial
that there is a teleological "plan" to life.
I'll leave you with a long passage from Anthony McWatt's Ph.D. thesis
which addresses this issue. (Sorry for swiping, Ant, but I'm too
tired to rei-nvent the wheel):
BEGIN MCWATT
[Pirsig] disagrees that evolutionary theory must be supplemented by a
teleological account (supernatural or otherwise).
The MOQ does not say that intellectual patterns guide the supremacy
of life over inanimate nature. On the contrary the MOQ says that at
the time life triumphed over inanimate nature there were no
intellectual patterns. (Pirsig 2004b)
As noted above, Pirsig suggests instead that evolution occurred due
to ‘spur of the moment decisions’ based on Dynamic Quality i.e.
undefined betterness.
"Dynamic Quality is not structured and yet it is not chaotic. It is
value that cannot be contained by static patterns. What the substance-
centered evolutionists were showing with their absence of final
‘mechanisms’ or ‘programs’ was not an air-tight case for the
biological goallessness of life. What they were unintentionally
showing was [that]… the patterns of life are constantly evolving in
response to something ‘better’ than that which these [physical] laws
have to offer." (Pirsig, 1991, p.146)
In other words, there is a tendency (what Popper would term a
propensity) in the universe for life to improve its situation where
possible but this improvement is not pre-determined by physical laws
nor consciously directed by a God towards a pre-set defined purpose
or end.
"Is there progress in evolution? Gould (1996a) 113 famously argues
there is not, but I think he has a concept of progress that I do not
share. He is right to rule out progress towards anything. This is the
whole point of Darwin’s inspiration – and what makes his theory so
beautiful - there is no master plan, no end point, and no designer.
But of course there is progress in the sense that we now live in
a complex world full of creatures of all kinds and a few billion
years ago there was only a primeval soup. Although there is no
generally accepted measure of this complexity, there is no doubt that
the variety of organisms, and their structural and behavioral
complexity have all increased." (Blackmore, 1999, p.13)
Though there is ‘no generally accepted measure of this complexity’
the recognition that there are tendencies in nature that select
ordered states (even when statistically these are vastly outnumbered
by chaotic permutations) is a multidisciplinary area of research and
those involved include physicists, economists and biologists. In MOQ
terms, the tendency towards ‘order’ that complexity indicates can be
restated as a balanced drive created between static quality patterns
towards Dynamic Quality.
END MCWATT
Thank you,
Mark Steven Heyman (msh)
-- InfoPro Consulting - The Professional Information Processors Custom Software Solutions for Windows, PDAs, and the Web Since 1983 Web Site: http://www.infoproconsulting.com "Thought is only a flash between two long nights, but this flash is everything." -- Henri Poincare' 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 : Mon Aug 16 2004 - 04:13:47 BST