Hi David -- > You know if you wanted to convince a bunch of MOQers > that the below possibility [a deficiency of the MoQ] is one > worth considering I'd suggest you'd have to start with the > differentiated and relational reality of experience as > described by the MOQ and show that this description > poses a set of questions/problems that need to be > answered or solved by what you suggest.
David, the problem you have outlined is so complex, and the MoQ is so different an approach to philosophy, that I've long since given up the idea of trying to incorporate it into Essentialism. To follow your suggestion, I would have to assign levels & patterns to processes of nature and evolution which are far too diversified for such parsing. Besides, Essentialism is founded on an undifferentiated source which needs only to actualize "difference" to create the appearance of a physical universe. Whatever partitioning or categorization of existence occurs is a function of the cognitive intellect, not nature or quality (value). The inorganic, organic, social, and intellectual patterns of the MoQ have no more philosophical significance than any other four-level classification. For example, I could divide my realty into substantive, psychic, quantitative, and mechanical; but to what end? Existence is patently manifested as objects, events, organisms, and thoughts; but so what? It doesn't prove anything or add to our understanding of the meaning or purpose of life. The only meaningful division I see as having any potential for understanding is the difference between subjective awareness and objective otherness. But this is plain old S/O reality, which the MoQers insist is "static" and "low-quality" comprehension. They need something more, but they are averse to a transcendent source on the ground that "supernaturalism" is unscientific and regressive. So instead, they hypothesize a "dynamic" system of levels that controls the whole universe, supposedly moving it to a higher state of "betterness". Where does that leave man with his exquisite sense of values, morality, and intellectual capability? Indeed, as Sartre once suggested, "the universe would get along just as well without him." For me, any philosophy that dismisses metaphysics is nothing but a euphemistic paradigm without a creator, a purpose, or a rationale for the Experience which Pirsig equates with Reality. Likewise, a philosopher who rejects the individual as the vital locus of reality so that he can "overcome" duality has aligned himself with objectivism. That this view of reality must be understood and accepted on the basis of what "Pirsig says" has led to the circular debates that go on endlessly here. The best I can do, it would seem, is to offer some fundamental concepts for consideration, and allow the MoQuists to determine which, if any, may be compatible with Pirsig's thesis. Your suggestions are sincerely appreciated, David, but I think you can understand my dilemma. Essentially yours, 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/
