Re: MD Is Morality Relative?

Date: Sat Dec 04 2004 - 06:48:03 GMT

  • Next message: "Re: MD Is Morality Relative?"

    Ham to Chin --

    As you see, I did receive your earlier response but didn't have time to
    reply. Incidentally FYI, I've noted that e-mails on this forum take up to
    an hour to get posted, so I assume they initially go to Horse in the UK who
    adds the tag info at the bottom of each posting. (But that's only my
    assumption.) They've also told me not to use "rich text" which evidently
    causes some problems in transmission. (If you make any inquiries, perhaps
    you can find out how the two of us can get our personal names listed rather
    than our URLs. I asked once and got no response.)

    The comparisons and suggestions for my thesis are much appreciated. May I
    make a few comments?

    In a message dated 12/2/04 9:50:15 PM Eastern Standard Time,
    You may think of it that way. But then Quality has to be the primary cause;
    else, where does the self come from? You can't have experience without a
    subject and an object, which means you must account for differentiation in
    order to explain creation. The MoQ does not.

    > The creation simply comes from the Quality. Quality is in my view,
    'Nothingness', Oneness, Absolute, Being, God,
    > Allah, or Creator. As I stated, (and possibly hasn't been posted yet(?))
    Pirsig does not like the use of God or Allah for > the reasons that religion
    has evolved into a culture in which the "Word' is cause for harm, such as in
    'Holly Wars'.

    If creation "comes from" Quality, it must be the Creator or primary source.
    MoQers seem to have difficulty answering this question. I'm very aware of
    their aversion to theism and religious connotations which are unpopular
    associations for any cult movement today.

    > Your Essence is interesting, but as you said cannot be proven, and must be
    taken on faith. This is the essence of religion, > it must be taken on
    faith. As you have correctly stated, everything cannot be determined
    scientifically. Religion is
    > included in 'Social' in the MOQ. Intellect cannot deny social, nor can
    social deny intellect. (in the MOQ)

    Use of the word "faith" for a metaphysical hypothesis is a little strange,
    isn't it? MoQ followers don't usually refer to their Quality belief system
    as a faith. Do you suppose this is because Pirsig insists that MoQ is an
    empirically-based philosophy, or is it because I have recognized and stated
    the "supernatural" aspects of Essentialism?

    > Something that you hit on, the suspension of ego in your thesis fits in
    with what I had stated prior to this thread. The self > you speak of is
    split in 'Big Self' and 'Small Self' by Pirsig. The 'Big Self' would be this
    'Nothingness' in Buddhism (in
    > Pirsig's view).

    I can't speak for Pirsig. My cosmology derives from Eckhart's intuitive
    concept that "man is a nothingness" and that "God creates being from
    nothingness." I posit man as a "negate" -- an entity whose essence-value is
    an "otherness" to him. To become cognizant of Being, the subject (self)
    re-negates this otherness incrementally (in experience), deriving its value
    as the positive result of two negatives. Since individual selfness has no
    place in absolute Essence, Value is man's link to Essence. To realize that
    Value, he must, as you say, "suspend" his selfness (ego), which is
    consistent with Buddhistic mysticism.

    Chin, if I may ask a personal question: are you a Buddhist yourself? If
    you're knowledgeable on Buddhism, you can be a big help to me. I've read
    little of it to date, yet, when you get beyond the symbolism, it can be a
    vital source of inspired thought.

    > Where Pirsig has obviously taken Buddhism as his preferred religious view,
    you have taken Christianity(?)

    That's an undeserved compliment. But thank you, anyway. I no longer
    consider myself a Christian, as I am not a theist and don't subscribe to the
    tenets of a personal deity. I do believe spiritualism is needed in a
    personal philosophy, however, and would like to think Essentialism may
    someday return it to Western culture.

    > It is my belief that God is too big for any single religion. If we could
    take the best of all religions, as opposed to deny
    > any worth of any other religion, then we might find this 'Knowledge' you
    say we are denied until we are united with our > Creator.

    Your objective is commendable. I'd go a step further by replacing religion
    with a Philosophy of Essence, keeping the spirituality as a metaphysical
    belief system but dropping the dogma.

    > It was a great attempt on your part to satisfy what is not seen as
    reasonable in the part of metaphysics as a replacement > 'Value' which is
    missing in the Quantum Physics you speak of.

    Thanks, again. You're most kind. But it was actually Pirsig who laid this
    out in his SODV paper. Since I had developed a valuistic thesis along the
    same lines, I merely took his basic concept and ran with it.

    > If you will permit me an observance, it appears that your thesis offered
    as an academic paper as it does not lend itself to > the masses, but only
    the few academicians. In achieving academic excellence, you must suspend
    your biases toward
    > proving your hypothesis, and be disinterested in the outcome of your
    > This is not meant as criticism, but just to make the point that if you are
    going to pass off this Essence in academia, you
    > might want to take into consideration that others in academia are quite
    knowledgeable of the works of the philosophers > you mention. If you are not
    interested in passing it off in academia, you might want to bring it down to
    a more fifth grade > dialogue, as most would not understand what you are
    saying, especially in the first part
    > It is my belief that if I cannot explain in on a fifth grade level that I
    am most likely not doing anyone any good, and
    > possibly don't understand it myself. Should this reality be understandable
    only by the few academicians, or all?

    Chin, I don't have the professional credentials to submit my thesis to
    academia. My degrees are in Biology/Chemistry and Music Theory. Philosophy
    has always been a hobby. So I'm torn between striving for "academic
    excellence" and simplifying the Essence concept for a general audience --
    "5th graders"? Obviously, I've gotten nowhere with the on-line thesis as
    it now stands. But your suggestions are well taken.

    > It appears you are leaning more toward creative excellence in that you
    only use what agrees with your hypothesis in an > attempt to provide your
    thesis with agreeable offerings from the philosophers you mentioned; most of
    which taken in full > context of their philosophies would not agree.

    I hope you're wrong in that conclusion. I tried to establish an
    intellectual dialogue with RMP, but only received a terse reply suggesting
    that I might generate some interest in this Discussion Group. But, please
    feel free to show me where I may have misinterpreted other philosophers I've
    quoted. I don't want to misquote or deceive anyone just to get my ideas

    > At least know we agree on 'Ego'. In any religion, East or West, suspending
    the ego places you in touch with the Source, > and is what brings you
    closest to this 'Essence' or 'Quality'.
    > I believe if you will read all of what was written by Pirsig, you might
    see a lot of what you say agrees with what he does, > except he has a
    contempt bias toward Western religion, and you have a favorable one.

    Appreciate your thoughts, Chin. And your understanding.
    Let's keep in touch.

    Essentially yours,

    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 : Sat Dec 04 2004 - 06:53:42 GMT