Ham, this is a good topic. I think what throws off MoQ understanding Is where in Lila, he begins to give examples of how looking at classical Physics in terms of Quality relationships, changes how you conceptualize. I'm not really sure he meant those examples to be taken as MoQ gospel Or not. Pirsigs books are Much more than a metaphysic, and much less.
Ham: Pirsig has not defined his DQ as absolute, immutable, or immanent, so we are left to understand it only in relational terms. Ron: In the meaning of Absolute, I take to be unchanging. I would agree, neither Quality, DQ or SQ are unchanging. So yes we are only left with relational terms. It is this understanding which takes Quality off the chess board with Classical logic. Which is what you are using as a standard criteria to base You assessments. I think this is why laypeople grasp it more readily Than someone who is well versed in classical metaphysics. I imagine it would seem incomplete to them. [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: That sounds about right as a description of Pirsig's epistemology. But a pattern is a particular form or configuration of something. According to your analysis, that something is Quality. But quality is an experienced attribute, which means that it is dependent on the "experiencer", the conscious subject of the experience. Again, that does not qualify as the fundamental source. Ron: Why not? It certainly ties into why it can not be defined. [Ham, previously]: > 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 dependent on value. Else how do you > support such a notion? Ham: No. Value is a sensed attribute of Essence. It is the "substance" of experience, not the primary source. Being-aware is a dichotomous property of the cognizant self which exists "outside the loop" of Essence. It is the individuated self which is dependent on value, not Essence. Ron: don't we need value to realize Essence? How did you realize Essence? It originated in your awareness of it correct? Your value awareness to be More exact. [Ron]: > 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 se, 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: I can accept the last part of your analysis. However, the statement "we are Quality" is problematic to this end. For if we were Value itself, what would there be to experience? I would say we are quality-sensible (Value-sensible) entities. Ron: What you do not consider is what that entity is comprised of itself, which is value, a value sensible entity composed of value. Ham: The values that we are sensible of are differentiated and relational, like everything else in existence. Our existence as a 'being-aware' is a self/other synthesis derived from Essence. Ron: I feel Our perception of being aware is based on the grammatical expression Of self/other. Self/other is an illusion of the perception of complex Patterns of energy of varying degrees of density or value. Ham: Human beings "exist" insofar as we are aware of an other whose value we can only sense. In reality it is WE who are the "other", which is why we cannot participate in Essence but can only view it from the periphery, so to speak. Ron: This is where we part ways, In MoQ, I believe, we participate on every level For we are it. Value is sensed by value, our senses are composed of value which transform patterns. From inorganic to organic to social to intellectual all transforming at varying rates and density infinitely which is why it can not be defined as absolute and immutable.. [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. Ham: Well, I appreciate your analysis, despite its problems, and I commend you for your willingness to shed some insight on the MoQ. I still feel that Pirsig's refusal to define Dynamic Quality was unjustified, and that he was wrong to dismiss subjective awareness as the locus of experience. Ron: As I understand it he does place the locus in what is interpreted as subjective experience of immediate awareness. We are Quality. >From The thoughts in our head to the edge of the universe And beyond. Thanks 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/
