From: hampday@earthlink.net
Date: Tue May 24 2005 - 05:40:02 BST
Hello Mike --
Welcome to the fray!
First I must ask where the name Hamilton originated in your ancestral line.
It is my middle name, although I've always been called by Hamilton or "Ham",
and I was told that my great grandfather's grand uncle was Alexander
Hamilton. If it's a family name in your case, too, we may be related. In
any case, it's good to meet you.
> Perhaps I can shed light on your puzzlement, but first I'd like to make a
picky
> alteration to your phrasing, because I think it slightly misconstrues the
MOQ.
> You call the "unitary Whole" DQ, when according to my understanding
> it should be all-encompassing Quality. This is split into
> (and here comes the paradox, as I see it) DQ, the indestructable eternal
> creating force, and SQ, the patterns that form the bewildering flux of
> change that surrounds all of us.
You probably have it right, although Pirsig's metaphysics are
under-developed and quite confusing to most people. I don't think he would
accept your notion of an "all-encompassing" quality, however, as it would
add a third element to the ontology -- i.e., Static, Dynamic, and
Absolute(?). I'm not an authority on the MoQ but merely a renegade here,
having developed my own theory of Essence Value. (That's why you'll see me
taunt MoQers by using Quality in the context of a Primary Source, knowing
that such a concept is rejected by MoQ's author and followers.) I suggest
instead that you take this matter up with Platt, MSH, DMB, Scott, or Ant
McWatt, all of whom are MD members in good standing and quite proficient at
articulating the MoQ in easily comprehensible fashion -- usually in the
author's own words.
> I'd like to explain why I find this paradox such a satisfying explanation,
> but I need time to get my thoughts together. For now, can I just ask you
> whether or not your conception of the paradox is satisfied by my
> rephrasing? It was pedantic, but it'll be safer if we get this straight
> before launching into a lengthy discussion.
As you can see, I've given up trying to make sense of the Quality heirarchy
because it doesn't address Creation, proprietary awareness, or the
teleological issue, and its author has stated that an MoQ metaphysics would
be "a contradiction in terms."
The fact that you picked up on this significant omission further supports my
claim that the necessity for a Primary Source can't be avoided if the MoQ
philosophy is to have any transcendent meaning for mankind. There has been
a lot of speculation in the MD concerning how Intellect and Morality fit
into the various Quality levels, yet I seem to be alone here in questioning
the foundation for this presumed heirarchy. So that, when you do "get your
thoughts together", if you are able to posit the metaphysics in such a way
that it resolves the paradox, you'll certainly have my attention.
Meanwhile, at the risk of adding to your confusion, I invite you to review
my thesis for a Philosophy of Essence at www.essentialism.net. I don't
expect you to understand it any better than the MoQ at first reading, but I
think it will show you why I was drawn to Pirsig's Quality concept and why I
have difficulty with his multi-level ontology.
Good luck, Mike,
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 : Mon May 23 2005 - 05:58:44 BST