Dear Marsha --
> Your objection to the MOQ is its lack of 'primary source' and > 'purpose'. It seems to me that these two concepts are built on ideas > within the evolution and limitations of human knowledge. What proof > or experience can you offer for these concepts? In using the word > 'primary', you are stating something specific. This adjective leads > me to ask why the source couldn't be the third or ninth in series of > processes? And the word purpose would imply intention, what can you > tell me about this intention and the desired results? I have asked > these question before, but you have not given a response. Yet you > trot out the word 'nihilism' to point out their absence? It seems to > me nothing is absent. I do not "object" to the MoQ, I simply find it metaphysically inadequate. For example, it seems to me that Pirsig has taken morality out of the human domain and applied it to the universe at large. Well, if the universe is moral, so is nature and nature's man. Why, then, should anyone strive for morality? What purpose does life serve if nature is innately moral? Pirsig suggests that we try to "discover" that principle on the premise that "some things are better than others". That would make our role in existence discovering its Quality or Goodness rather than actualizing it through our decisions and behavior. You are correct that purpose implies intention. Without a primary source the only agent with "intent" is man. If man is predesigned to be moral, his intent must also be moral. This would mean he isn't free to choose compassion, responsibility, and goodness over savagery, bestiality, and murder. Clearly, that isn't the case. On the other hand, teleology (metaphysical purpose) reflects the "intent" of the primary source which, I maintain, is creating an autonomous agent to bring Value into awareness, thereby making being aware. I have defined Essence as the "uncreated" absolute source, which means that it is self-sufficient and not subject to the "comings and goings" of actualized existence. Pirsig refuses to acknowledge a primary metaphysical source, presumably because of its theological implications. Therefore the MoQ is consistent only if the moral and psychic attributes of consciousness are posited as "patterns and levels" of Quality. Since I believe in an anthropocentric universe, that's an ontology I can't accept. [Marsha, from second message]: > What is metaphysics? RMP stated his reluctance to create a > metaphysics of quality. With that admonition he went ahead to create > the MOQ. To me the MOQ is a framework in which to explore the > boundaries and holes in my own limited knowledge. By making Quality > indivisible, indefinable and unknowable the MOQ is expansive. By > demanding that it include a primary source and purpose, I think you > are promoting unnecessary restrictions. If my mind is Swiss cheese, > than possibly the holes allow for the better, more dynamic experiences. > > Any thoughts? Dagobert Runes defines the traditional meaning of Metaphysics as "the science of being as such, to be distinguished from the study of being from some particular aspect." But since being is a subject/object contingency, and objects are perceived as finite and relational, I prefer Essence (as distinguished from existence) to name the primary source. For me, metaphysics is the theory of reality beyond experiential knowledge. Such theory can only be hypothetical, of course, so I can offer no "empirical proof" for my metaphysical concepts. All knowledge comes from experience, but if you base your reality perspective entirely on knowledge, you will gain more from Science than Philosophy. The latter draws on logic, intuition, and reason. Instead of exploring "new frontiers" of knowledge, which is as fallible as experience, Philosophy (especially metaphysics) attempts to identify the fundamental nature of reality and apply reasoned hypotheses to account for what we experience. You say that "by demanding that it include a primary source and purpose, I think you are promoting unnecessary restrictions." I don't see that at all. For me, failing to consider primacy and purpose imposes an unnecessary restriction on understanding. It also reveals a prejudicial attitude toward spirituality and supra-natural or transcendental beliefs. (Another reason for my use of the offensive term.) These are valid questions, Marsha, and they demonstrate that you are thinking--whether with swiss cheese or gray matter. If you're still talking to me when my book comes out, I'll send you a complimentary copy. Love, Ham 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/
