Hi Ham --
> 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.
Ham:
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.
Ron:
First of all we need to separate the terms and concepts describing
experience from experience itself. Quality, DQ and SQ are terms
and concepts used to describe experience. Chiefly, the concept
of Quality is one that all experience is composed of infinitely
transforming patterns. Subject/Object self/other are grammatical
linguistic descriptions of this experience. Same goes for DQ/SQ.
DQ/SQ works well with the concept of Quality as reality for descriptive
And conceptual purposes because it keeps the concept of the
transformation
Of patterns.
It's difficult to relate to the terms of finitude because in this
ontology
The finite is an illusion an appearance a perception.
Ham:
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.
Ron:
Then I would say that Essence is dependant on value. Else how do you
support such a notion.
Ham:
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.
Ron:
That's because Pirsig does not posit a source for source implies
separation.
There really isn't a dualism with pirsig, just terms he uses to describe
The experience of transforming patterns. Quality is not absolute for we
Are in constant transformation. We are Quality. Why it defies classical
Logic is that it renders logic superlative in the face of immediate
experience. Logic is an intellectual game we play by certain rules we
create. To put it plainly he places source in immediate experience.
In some ways this rivals your concepts in that all that exists is the
Experience of being yet he differs in this by proposing that we are
It. Quality itself. No source per say. But the infinite transformation
Of energy in process developed to an awareness. What this means
spiritually
Is that there is no separation, we are already complete and whole and it
Is up to our free will to establish meaning and purpose within it.
Ham:
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.
Ron:
I wouldn't say you are wrong, but rather an explanation why the
interpretation I have developed works more completely than the common
One expressed to you in the past.
Regards,
Ron
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/
