[Ham] I'm introducing a new topic, because I think it's the crux of our problem with Pirsig's Quality thesis.
[Magnus] Actually, the crux for you in this forum is a few selected quotes from your recent posts. [Arlo] Notice, too, here the sly, deceptive use of the royal "we". "Our" problem? What deceitful rhetoric! If you review the majority of Ham's contributions, you'll see a pattern emerge where he "pretends" to have some difficulty resolving Pirsig's ideas, and will then act like he and you can "find a solution together", but every step of the way its nothing but a presentation on how "Essentialism" is superior to "Pirsig's Quality thesis". He was doing this a while back over his "Glorious Man", and when I intervened he said I was "hindering acceptance of the MOQ". I still laugh out loud at this. Ham, your buddy, who will help you resolve your mutual confusion about the MOQ and then, lo and behold, we are in Essentialism! What coincidence! "Our problem"... give me a break. [Magnus] Every single quality event involves two objects. From each object's point of view, *it* is the subject valuing the other. [Arlp] Spot on. From ZMM, "Quality [can not] be independently related with either the subject or the object but could be found only in the relationship of the two with each other. It is the point at which subject and object meet. ... It is the event at which the subject becomes aware of the object. And because without objects there can be no subject...because the objects create the subject's awareness of himself...Quality is the event at which awareness of both subjects and objects is made possible. ... This means Quality is not just the result of a collision between subject and object. The very existence of subject and object themselves is deduced from the Quality event. The Quality event is the cause of the subjects and objects, which are then mistakenly presumed to be the cause of the Quality! " (Pirsig). [Ham] if the evolution of nature is an automatic process that goes on without human involvementwhat cosmic purpose is served by man's creation? [Magnus] Seriously, are you trying to convert us to some religious interpretation of reality? [Arlo] Understand, Magnus, that for Ham the greatest threat to our civilization is "nihilism", and that is evident clear in his question. We HAVE TO have some "cosmic purpose", and the entire edifice of Essentialism has been built out of fear of facing the void. A couple years back, Ian summarized Ham's "thinly veiled theism" perfectly. ""Consciousness" is a "special creation" of Essence that is "granted" to "priviliged subjects" so that they can "realize and affirm" the Infinite Source.... God created humans so they would worship him, eh?" (MOQ Archives, Dec 8, 2005). [Ham] But it's also true that if there is no individual there is no existence. [Magnus] That's actually correct if you see every static pattern as an individual. But I'm pretty sure you, by individual, mean "man", right? [Arlo] Again, spot on, Magnus. 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/
