Hi Jos [SA mentioned] --
> That said, I'm increasingly convinced that "source" or "essence"
> are better terms than DQ, as they attribute no particular assumptions
> to "it" whatever it is.
Hooray! I commend you for your understanding.
I think what Mr. Perella fails to comprehend is the concept of
transcendency. He regards the "source" of a river as the estuaries that
feed it, or the "essence" of a pine tree as the seed from which it
sprouts.
This is an ontology based on the Aristotelian notion that everything has
its own "essence". Yet, one would think his mystical leanings should
have led him to an understanding of Oneness. He needs to contemplate on
the "prime mover", the uncreated First Cause, instead of created
"patterns". (So does everybody else, in my humble opinion.)
The mystery of metaphysics is getting from unity to difference, and back
again. Frankly, it puts chills in my spine. All knowledge, and all
awareness of knowledge, is relational. Yet, except for the nihilists,
most of us know (intuitively) that the primary source must be the end of
relations. It must be "that which transcends all otherness." My
thesis is
the Value is what connects all finitude to the infinite source. Plain
old experience is nothing more than being aware of Value as "things".
Man is a valuistic creature who makes Value aware as Being. But Being
(in the finite
world) is devoid of cognizant awareness. Only value links them
together.
Therefore, being-aware is a dichotomy. By absorbing (realizing) Value,
we incrementally "dissolve" the dichotomy and approach that mystical
Oneness from which we are all separated at birth.
Sure, that's "poetry", SA. But it's a poem founded on metaphysical
reality.
We're not going to confirm it through the methods of Science or the
consensus of society. But as a personal credo, I'll stack it up against
the the "patterns of Quality" any day.
Submitted with "conviction".
--Ham
{Ron]
Is'nt this what Pirsig is basically sayin but using different terms? I
fail to see the hubub, bub.
your gripe with MOQ. seems to be one of terminology.
DQ = essent
subject/object (static) = being-aware
Value = Value
Essentialism = realizing oneness through dichotomy
MOQ = realizing oneness through complex system theory Pointing out how
rationalizing through
dichotomy may leaves out aspecs of reality.
which is what this argument is about. you seem to be concerned with
focus on source. Pirsig focuses
on the phenomenal. Essentialism is cool but it doesent help me to
understand complex systems
which is what reality is composed of. Essentialism is great but how does
it define source
any better than Dynamic Quality? Any way I turn it I still have a hard
time understanding
how Essentialism furthers any of these concepts short of re-defining
them.
If you could in some way basically list the advantages of Essentialism
over MOQ
then I think you'd win more of us.
-Thanks
Moq_Discuss mailing list
Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
Archives:
http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
