From: hampday@earthlink.net
Date: Wed May 18 2005 - 18:39:36 BST
Hey, Platt --
Since you're enjoying these "rounds", I must not be making any headway. So
I suppose I'll have to adopt a tougher posture.
> As soon as you introduce the idea that Quality requires a "sensible agent"
> I know you're assuming a subject-object worldview which apparently you
> find impossible to shake. Obviously if you make that assumption what you
> claim about "Quality without a sensor makes no sense" follows logically.
> But suppose, just suppose, you began with the assumption that Quality is
> existence, and that existence itself is a force for good. Then the initial
> division becomes not subject/object but forces that initiate changes
> (Dynamic) and forces that preserve changes. Why adopt the assumption that
> existence itself is a force for good? Because existence in which value
> (quality) is subtracted would be empirically unrecognizable.
I never said, or even implied, that existence was a "force for good", so I
don't know where the morality issue came from. If I accept your assumption
that Quality is existence -- I assume that "existence" to you means
reality -- then Quality is the primary empirical reality, as Pirsig has
stated. Then everything else is "secondary" in the sense that it is either
a derivative, an appearance, or an illusion of Quality. This would also
imply that the cognizant Self is illusionary, which supports Mark's
statement (from the Capitalism thread):
> Objectivists see individuals as absolutely distinct from one
> another; the FRH [fully realized human] understands that all
> humans share a common humanity, and that any perceived
> difference between individuals is a cultural illusion.
Mark me down as an "objectivist", then. At one point last year you were a
strong advocate for individualism; your default to the collectivist ideology
of the MoQ thus comes as a disappointment to me. While you appear to have
reduced the individual to a byproduct of nature, I have made human awareness
the irreducible core of existential reality.
According to my immutability principle, there is no fudging, i.e., "leveling
off" or partitioning, of Essence into varying degrees of intellect or value.
Once you have awareness of an "other", you are in the realm of
differentiated existence, and Reality is part of that other. The difference
between you and me and anyone else is all the difference in the world, and
while the "sharing of humanity" is a nice liberal metaphor for collectivism,
it's an untenable metaphysical position.
If you believe in the Designer principle, it takes no leap of faith to
realize that the universe is set up as a differentiated system; that is, the
individual confronting what he perceives as his existential reality. There
is a "clean break" between the unity of Essence and the differentiated world
of existence. Within existence things have the attribute of polarization;
everthing is seen as relative to everything else, including the qualities
and values we ascribe to them. In this anthropocentric system it is up to
man to set the standards of behavior, ethics and goodness that we call
Morality.
This, incidentally, is where I depart from orthodox religion, and where I
also take issue with the "humanistic ideology" implicit in the MoQ.
Morality for the MoQer is defining some things as better than others; thus,
what one perceives as good is called "high quality", what is not so good is
"low quality". That's not a morality system, it's a moronic system; and how
can one become enlightened to the purpose of existence when the MoQ reagards
the individual as "a cultural illusion"?
Platt said:
> But I hope I can persuade you that there's empirical evidence for values
> if for no other reason than you place a low value on a multi-level Quality
> hierarchy. You make countless similar value judgments every day. In fact,
> empirically there's no escape.
Values ARE empirical, like everything else in our individuated existence.
The only value that is non-empirical is the Value of Essence which is the
source of existence. Unfortunately, many of us seem to have difficulty
recognizing that value.
Platt said:
> Ideas, thoughts, dreams, all exist. They are experience.
> Otherwise, you couldn't describe them. But just because they exist
doesn't
> necessarily mean they are high on the value scale of believability or
> truth.
According to you, Santa Claus and the tooth fairy exist, but on a "very low
level of the value scale". Come on now, Platt. Where is "reasonable" on
your value scale?
Essentially,
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 : Wed May 18 2005 - 20:26:04 BST