Hi Ham So much of the below seems to me to fail to grasp the benefits of the MOQ I wonder why you persist with talking to us MOQers. What you want to set up metaphysically just seems to kick off SOM again & unnecessarily so.
regards David M > > 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/ > 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/
