Ham questioned of Pirsig's philosophy:
Or, is he saying that Reality, as Quality, has a moral conscience of its own 
that determines the course of evolution?

Marsha corrected (quite correctly):
It is that Quality _is_ morality, not _has_ a moral conscience.

Ham then said oddly:
No, Marsha. The primary source is not morality, it is potentiality.

Marsha hit back:
Quality is morality.

Matt:
I believe the kids would say--

Awwwww, SNAP!

Matt

p.s.  Good one, Marsha.


> Date: Tue, 6 May 2008 13:23:32 -0400
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: [MD] Correctness and Usefulness
>
> At 12:46 PM 5/6/2008, you wrote:
>
>>Dear Marsha --
>>
>>[Ham, referring to Pirsig's quote "it's all in your head."]
>>>If morals are all in my head, morality is what is good for me. In
>>>other words, it's relative to the
>>>observing subject.
>>
>>[Marsha]:
>>Maybe it's relative to the connection between the
>>patterns which comprise the observing subject and
>>the patterns being observed. Everything is connected to everything.
>>
>>Reminds me of the old ditty, "shin bone's connected to the thigh
>>bone's connected to the leg bone's connected to the ..." Sure,
>>everything is connected. That's what makes the experiential
>>universe a relational system. But Existence is not a system: it's a
>>self/other dichotomy.
>
> Says who???
>
>
>>And the contingents of this dichotomy are not jusr
>>"intellectualized relations", they are antinomies -- contradictory
>>essents that are responsible for all "difference" in actualized reality.
>
> They are empty, empty, empty...
>
>
>
>>Consider the empirical difference between the subjective Self and
>>objective Otherness.
>
> And what would that be?
>
>>Self is the immanent, conscious locus of awareness.
>
> Self is a ever-changing collection of overlapping, interrelated,
> inorganic, biological, social and intellectual, static patterns of value.
>
>> It has no being, cannot be objectively localized, measured,
>> quantified, or observed.
>
> If you are saying self has no place, time or nature, that sounds
> about right. Empty.
>
>
>>Otherness is all the rest.
>
> Opposite-from-non-self. Empty.
>
>
>>It is external, universal, substantive, quantitative,
>>predictable. Awareness and Beingness have no attributes in common
>>but are absolutely divided in existence. The only thing that holds
>>this dichotomy together is the Value of the primary source.
>
> Quality is Emptiness. You can divide and label it many way you
> like, but it is still Quality (Dynamic/static).
>
>
>
>>>It is that Quality _is_ morality, not _has_ a moral conscience.
>
>
>
>
>>No, Marsha. The primary source is not morality, it is potentiality.
>
> Quality is morality.
>
>>Morality is what man chooses for society based on what is
>>intellectualized as "good for him".
>
> That is man-made definition of morality. Quality IS morality, with
> or without man.
>
>
>> If ultimate reality were Morality, mankind could not make these
>> choices, and there would be no "moral conscience'. We would all be
>> programmed to behave as Reality dictates. Instead of free
>> creatures, we would be robots incapable of appreciating moral or
>> esthetic value in our experienced world.
>
> Man-made morality is important, I think, but I'm not positive. This
> man-made morality has been a dismal failure.
>
>
>
>>The Quality that Pirsig extols is what I call the Value of our
>>primary Essence. The cognizant individual can realize this quality
>>only because she is negated from the source.
>
> You do have some ideas that interest me, but not the above two
> sentence. This sounds very much like baloney. Maybe if you change
> source to emptiness, it would make some sense.
>
>
>>As an artist, when you produce an original painting on canvas, how
>>do you know it has value?
>
> I can know if painting a canvas has had value because I experienced
> the value of painting it.
>
>
>>We can know it only by experiencing it.
>
> You would know if there were value in viewing it, by viewing it.
>
>>If you were the canvas would you be aware of your value?
>
> I am not a canvas so I don't know.
>
>>It requires an observer apart from the source of value to appreciate
>>its quality. Hence, the split between subjective awareness and
>>objective beingness. Existence represents this split or
>>dichotomy. But existence cannot be the ultimate reality because
>>nothing can create itself.
>
> I have no yet come to a decision about existence other than it's
> Quality/Emptiness.
>
>
>
>>This truth is sorely missing in Pirsig's MoQ.
>
> Says who?
>
>
>> He posits Existence as "moral quality", which it is clearly not,
>> and stops short of positing its potential source. The Quality
>> hierarchy may serve as a euphemistic paradigm for cultural
>> morality, but it cannot be considered a metaphysical ontology in
>> the absence of a source to support it.
>
> You confuse Social morality with Quality. Not much I can do about that.
>
>
>
>>Anyway, that's my opinion. I expect to be told that I have
>>misrepresented Pirsig's philosophy. And, while that's quite
>>possible, no one has yet convinced me that my interpretation is in error.
>
> Okay.
>
>
>
>>Thanks for your enlightenment on the interrelationship of value
>>patterns. Unfortunately, your maxim "the moral is relative to the
>>difference" is incomprehensible to me.
>
> I thought it was quite insightful.
>
>
>>Regards,
>>Ham
>>
>>
>
>
> Regards,
> Marsha
>
>
>
>
>
> Shoot for the moon. Even if you miss, you'll land among the stars...
>
> 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/

_________________________________________________________________
Make Windows Vista more reliable and secure with Windows Vista Service Pack 1.
http://www.windowsvista.com/SP1?WT.mc_id=hotmailvistasp1banner
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/

Reply via email to