Re: Ham; Re: MD Is Morality Relative?

Date: Fri Dec 03 2004 - 05:11:13 GMT

  • Next message: Erin: "Re: MD Empiricism"

    Hi again, Chin --

    > From your paper, I find that you had not quite yet understood MOQ, as
    Quality and Value are interchangeable in
    > Pirsig's view.

    I think I understand MoQ better now than when I wrote my thesis. However, I
    have not changed my views on creation, the "self", and the transcendental
    dynamics of Value.

    > What you are saying about bringing Value out of life-experience is what he
    considers 'Dynamic Quality' which is
    > interchangeable with 'Quality Event' or 'Quality Experience'.

    Yes, I believe MoQ most closely parallels my own thesis insofar as Value is
    concerned. It was what first drew me to Pirsig's philosophy.

    > Quality is also interchangeable with 'Nothingness', Oneness, Source,
    Being, and Absolute. He dismisses calling Quality > God or Allah as both are
    associated with religions that have used God and Allah for destructive
    purposes. These
    > destructive events have been qualified by the use of 'The Word' in these

    This is where my problems with MoQ start. Quality can not be both
    absolutely everything and nothing at the same time. Such extreme
    "interchangeability" is illogical to say the least. It's an excuse for
    sloppy theory, or no theory at all. There is no metaphysical explanation in
    the MoQ to account for creation, As a consequence there are continuous
    debates about "levels" of quality and where the split occurs between Oneness
    and Difference.

    In the Philosophy of Essence, I posit a "negational" Essence as the absolute
    and unalterable Source. Since logically only an external subject can serve
    to "observe" the Source,.Essence creates one by negating itself -- that is,
    by denying its own value. A value denied from Essence is an entity divided
    by nothingness. That is where difference begins. Once there is difference,
    there can be a self and an other, as well as the spacio-temporal dimensions
    of physical existence. By this metaphysical strategem Essence is
    "perfected" by an extrinsic perspective of its absolute Value. This
    perspective is that of a nothingness surrounded by its own denied essence.
    Because this nothingness (the self) is free to test or "challenge" its
    Source without the influence of absolutes, its experience of Value is
    conditional and unbiased. In this brief outline (expanded substantially in
    the thesis) you have a creation ontology, a metaphysical hypothesis for
    finite reality, and a teleological purpose for man's existence -- none of
    which, I must add, is provided by MoQ's author. .

    > In your "Highly condensed abstract," I feel you have missed the basics of
    > MOQ is based on the four levels of inorganic patterns, biological
    patterns, social patterns, and the intellect. His Quality > exists before,
    after, and within these patterns.

    I don't see the need for all these patterns. In his SODV paper Pirsig says,
    "In the Metaphysics of Quality the world is composed of three things: mind,
    matter and Quality." Why do we need more categories?. To me, they only
    obfuscate the concept. Aren't we better served by the classical duality of
    mind and matter -- subject and object? But something has to be primary to
    existence -- has to transcend existence -- that is, something which is not
    an existent. I can't see Quality as meeting this metaphysical criterion,
    but I think Essence does.

    > Quality is exactly 'Value', and this Value replaces the void of the
    beginning Object which is diminished in Bohr's
    > representation of the Quantum Physics Theory.

    My understanding of Bohr's Complementarity was that it was a proposal to
    ignore the unobservable properties (values) of quantum particles and limit
    the experimental conclusions to statistical data. It was about how to
    account for values such as the form and trajectories of photons. I've read
    nothing about "replacing voids" in this connection. Where does that come

    > Inorganic and biological are objective, and social and intellect are
    subjective. Intellect he holds at the highest level, but
    > also realized that this highest level can lend itself to low Quality
    reality as well. The social patterns take longer to realize > Quality, but
    they also are less subject to create low Quality, as these patterns are
    pretty much static, and it may take
    > much longer for the social patterns to change due to Quality events or

    That's so much conjection. I see no evidence for the idea that Quality
    evolves from a lower to a higher state. In fact, it contradicts the
    thermodynamic law of entropy.

    > I'll read the rest of it another time, and try to offer
    agreement/critisism on your overall thoughts.

    Great! This is one of the longest postings I've made here. Hopefully it
    will be mutually beneficial.

    Good luck with the reading, Chin,


    MOQ.ORG -
    Mail Archives:
    Aug '98 - Oct '02 -
    Nov '02 Onward -
    MD Queries -

    To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Dec 03 2004 - 05:16:38 GMT