From: hampday@earthlink.net
Date: Thu Jun 30 2005 - 05:31:14 BST
Greetings, Reinier --
For a "first poster" with only recent acquaintance with Pirsig you are very
perceptive.
It was Pirsig's theory of an esthetic reality that attracted me to this
forum two years ago. As a part-time participant I've since learned that the
author was disappointingly lax in developing a metaphysics to support the
MoQ. The closest he comes to it is a paper on "Subjects, Objects, Data and
Values" (SODV) which I strongly recommend that you read. (You can access it
on line from the MoQ home page.)
Practically all of the debates in the DM revolve around various
interpretations of statements appearing in the two major auto-biographical
novels, ZMM and LILA --
considered the sacred bible of MoQ loyalists. If you become one of those,
you'll soon be talking in the language of levels and patterns about almost
anything imaginable. Before you pursue this course, however, I'd like to
hear more about how you define "space" and what you have to say about
"time".
The folks here know I'm peddling my own philosophy of Essence and regard me
as a kind of renegade with little to contribute to the Pirsigian Values
heirarchy. Let me say that I regard the dimensions of space and time as the
existential grid of finite reality as viewed from the human perspective. So
your query is of special interest to me.
> I've come to the conclusion that geometric space cannot exist because of
> contradictions even in SOM itself. (I'll explain those if necessary) But
from the
> MOQ point of view there isn't even a need for geometric space, because
there is
> no substance to take up space.
I agree totally with your conclusion, except for the terminology. If
existence is defined as "that which occupies time and space", it would seem
that space/time is the boundary for existential reality, hence must be
included in what we call existence. You've correctly noted that Pirsig's
Quality, without SOM, is non-dimensional. For that reason I make a
distinction between "existence" and "quality" (my Essence). I see Essence
as transcending finitude. Quality to me is Value which I consider an SOM
phenomenon that links man to Essence. I have no need for endless levels and
patterns, since they are only capable of connecting man to objects and
events evolving in time and space. It is clear to me that ultimate reality,
whether one calls it Quality or Essence, is absolute and immutable, and thus
cannot be differentiated.
My hypothesis is supported by the neo-platonists Eckhart and Cusa who,
despite their medieval theological obligations, introduced the concept of a
"non-other" primary source. I've elaborated on this to some extent in my
Creation Hypothesis, which is the third section of my thesis at
www.essentialism.net/mechanic.htm . You may find this worth your review for
future discussion.
Pleased to have you aboard, Reinier, and I look forward to more fundamental
questions of this kind which I'm sure will be welcomed by the other
participants.
Essentially yours,
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 : Thu Jun 30 2005 - 05:31:52 BST