Hi Ron --
This discussion illustrates the need for clarity in meaning in MoQ
terms. What has to be realized is that Quality is dynamic as per
Krimel. Dynamic quality has meaning only in reference to static
quality and their context of reference. Therefore Ham mixes
context and understandably comes out with conflicts.
As Ham shows us, when we use DQ/SQ intellectually to define
the intellectual concept of Quality it creates modulations
of the container paradox. Essentially rendering DQ null
and void, leaving us to discuss this static realm that is now
separated from it's source which plays right into Hams thesis.
We say he's got it wrong but we are unable to precisely tell him
why he's mistaken about DQ.
Then, why don't you explain it for me, Ron? A workable ontology should
cogently relate the finite, differentiated world of experience to the
fundamental, undifferentiated reality.
If, as you say, DQ has meaning only in reference to SQ, then they are
mutually dependent potentialities or modes. In that case, there could be no
DQ without SQ, which in existentialist philosophy translates to "Being
precedes Essence". Does Pirsig believe there is no Dynamic Quality without
Static Quality? If so, DQ is "created" by SQ and is not the ultimate
reality. We should then have to look elsewhere for the primary source of
existential reality.
In my philosophy, Essence is absolute and fundamental. It is not dependent
on anything. Objects and events are perceived "reductions" of Essence
experienced (intellectualized) from Value. Since Essence is metaphysically
irreducible, difference can only arise through the negation of Essence which
actualizes awareness and otherness as a dichotomy. This is the "dualism"
that Prisig has failed to acknowledge but which is necessary to complete his
ontology. In other words, he needs to posit a primary source. The source
may involve quality or value as a function of its epistemology or teleology,
but Quality cannot logically stand by itself as the source of either
existence or experience.
Show me where I'm wrong about the MoQ. If you can provide an interpretation
that accounts for the origin and appearance of objective reality, I'll be
most eager to hear it. Otherwise, I shall continue to regard Pirsig's
"metaphysical thesis" as an aesthetic euphemism for the biological evolution
of mankind.
Thanks for pointing out the need for more clarity in the MoQ.
Regards,
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/
