Hi Ham,
The questions and puzzlements never end, do they? Yesterday I spent
the day with my three-and-a-half year-old grandson. Already he asks
'What does that mean?' in response to explanation to another question.
You seem to want a metaphysics to go by a static definition that
you've found in a compilation representing primarily a Western
point-of-view. And it seems that Rune's dictionary was published in 1942...
At 03:24 PM 10/8/2007, you wrote:
>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.
Your use of the word 'nihilism' seems an implied objection to the MOQ
because of what you find inadequate in relation to your static
interpretation of the word 'metaphysics'.
>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?
Hmm. There is the moral of a dynamic universe, and there is the
interpretation of the static/dynamic mind of humans. RMP equates
moral with good. ["Blackbird singing in the dead of Night."] Even
the sadomasochist strives for what he experiences as good. But he is
a collection of static patterns of value, inorganic, biological,
social and intellectual.
> 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.
I have no idea what purpose, from the universal perspective, life
serves. It is what it is. The fact that my mind strives for meaning
is just process within the dynamic.
>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.
Intent, from your anthropocentric point-of-view, is mind. What
percentage of that intent is constructed from inorganic, biological,
social and intellectual values? All is relational. And how does
that say anything about universal/dynamic morality or good? There is
static morality (the meaning sought within mind) and dynamic morality
(beyond mind). ["Shiva dance on my head!"]
>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.
From my point-of-view, baloney!!!
> 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.
RMP refuses to define Quality. I have no problem accepting that
there is something beyond human knowledge. Consistency? You're very
demanding for a human! RMP's ontology is based on experience,
events, process, and this, from my experience, seems true. Can there
be a correlation between rationality and experience? Rationality can
be useful, but highly overrated.
>[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.
I experience 'being' as relational and everchanging. Can the
existence of your hypothetical primary source be tested? Can logic
prove it true? I cannot challenge your intuition. I can only state
that it doesn't match mine. As interesting as your hypothesis is,
it's just what you think. Nothing wrong with that. It does, though,
conflict with my experience. To remind you, my original objection
was your trotting out the word 'nihilism', with all its negative
connotation.
>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.
I think science and philosophy are related. And you, yourself,
defined metaphysics as "the science of being'. Don't reasoned
hypotheses need to be testable?
>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.)
I embrace Gav's definition of the offensive term, nihilism.
[[Gav]
"nihilism, to me, is the rejection of all external morals, rules,
ideas about what is real, good, right. it is a clearing of the decks
so to speak. from here there is but one way forward: absolute trust
in oneself - one's own awareness."]
It reflects what RMP says about the poem from the Buddhist text and the MOQ.
"When early Western investigators first read the Buddhist texts they
too interpreted nirvana as some kind of suicide. There's a famous
poem that goes:
While living,
Be a dead man.
Be completely dead,
And then do as you please.
And all will be well.
It sounds like something from a Hollywood horror-film but it's about
nirvana. The Metaphysics of Quality translates it:
While sustaining biological and social patterns
Kill all intellectual patterns.
Kill them completely
And then follow Dynamic Quality
And morality will be served."
(LILA, Chapter 32)
>These are valid questions, Marsha, and they demonstrate that you are
>thinking--whether with swiss cheese or gray matter.
Are there valid questions? Me thinks I should be 'just painting'.
>If you're still talking
>to me when my book comes out, I'll send you a complimentary copy.
If I'm not talking, it will because I will be painting (I hope. And
Shiva will have granted my wish.
>Love,
>Ham
Much love,
Marsha
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/
