Greetings, Ham -- Ron: > The conflict in the meaningfulness between physical cosmology > and metaphysical cosmology lies in it's usefulness to the individual. > Some people need to be assured of their origin meaning and place > while others are comfortable with not knowing this in any universal > sense, rather placing this question within the free agent's will > to form these concepts from their own experience.
Ham: Perhaps I'm naive, Ron, but for me cosmology is cosmology whether we understand it as "physical" or "metaphysical". Snip: It seems odd that subscribers to the MoQ should be left with questions about reality (its origin, meaning, and their role in the universe), or with the option to "form these concepts from their own experience." Why haven't such questions been addressed by the author? Ron: Then you do not recognize the Copernican revolution. Cosmology was a subject of metaphysics before the Copernican Revolution. Especially since Einstein's theories, cosmology has been primarily concerned with physics. There are many types of cosmologies, ranging from theism to Nihilism to idealism. Pirsig prefers to let the reader parse that one out For them selves, in the Metaphysics of Quality it rejects no one on the basis of their cosmology in order to utilize the authors work. Whereas Essentialism does. What you and theism do not seem to understand is that you are both dealing With an educated audience that does not require an educated individual to Tell them what it all means anymore, in fact, they resent it. Which is why Christianity is in decline. Free will, where it matters most, is stifled By universal concepts of meaning and purpose. Essentialism can explain free agency but it does not allow for it. This is the problem I see. Ron prev: > I find this interesting coming from the two most avid champions > Of individualism and free agency, that they would tout universals > in its stead, in any form. Universal understanding of origin, > Place and meaning of the universe implies a collective appreciation > For your metaphysical ideals. If essentialism succeeds in supplying > Meaning and purpose for humanity how does the individual free agent > Figure into it? Seems to me that the independent assessment of meaning > and source is taken from the individual in Essentialism whereas physical > Cosmology at least leaves the door open to free will of concepts. Ham: I assume the appellation "champions of individualism" refers to Platt and myself. I can't speak for Platt, but I think you've misconstrued Essentialism if you regard it as a "collective" or universal belief system. While I would be delighted if all mankind could become essentialists, as it would eliminate many socio-cultural problems, my philosophy is distinctly individualistic in its presentation and approach to meaning. It's my belief that each individual must discover the meaning of his/her life, that the primary source is immanent, and that the value of a philosophy can be realized only by the individual. Ron: Then why not let them develop their own cosmology? MoQ states the very same thing each individual must discover the meaning. Only it drops the notion of immanent primary source on anthropomorphic Grounds. Whats the big beef then? You are certainly free to subscribe To the MoQ with or without your cosmological preferences. That's why It leaves certain aspects undefined. > Science offers theories based on observed phenomena where you offer > absolute source from intuitive reason. Science leaves the door open for > competing theories, Essentialism's source is absolute and non-negotiable. Ham: Again, you have confused the source with differentiated existence. My Essence is absolute in the same way that Pirsig's DQ is absolute. But, whereas the individual in the MoQ is described as a product of biological and social evolution and subject to the collective intellect, I view the human being as a free and autonomous agent of value. It is the difference between primary Oneness and individuated awareness that creates value in the first place. Individuals are psychically negated from Essence and can only sense its value relationally. If they were essential (which is not possible because of existential differentation) they would not be free to choose, and life would be a meaningless programmed ritual. It is our separateness which give us the sensibility to realize value and use it to actualize our "being in the world". Ron: and this is the conflict, Pirsig rails against the logic that employs the axiom of excluded middles. You exalt it and use it to build your position. It is a convention used to gain a measure of certainty in a world of flux. I always thought Essentialism was what Bo's SOL would look like if He bothered to set it out, for you do use subject object logic as Quality intellect very well. You do come very close to MoQ utilizing SOM. You two could of done it, make the transition, if you were both Able to compromise your positions but.....turns out it Isn't needed After all. Ham: I am told that I have the MoQ all wrong, that Quality is "dynamic" and self-revealing, that everything in existence is a pattern (including me), and that the author in his brilliance has "overcome duality" with this thesis. Metaphorically this may be true. However, after six years of participation in this forum, and having read both of the author's novels, I've become disillusioned by the lack of genuine metaphysical insight in this philosophy and the confusion surrounding its fundamental premises. Ron: This is partially due to the pre-Copernican definition of the term "metaphysics" you hold. The only confusion in MoQ lies in the conceptual Shift in grammar. this is attributed to the concepts transcending traditional grammatical referents of concrete/abstract distinction of terms. When that is made clear, it has no confusion. Ham: This is my personal assessment, of course, and I don't wish to disparage you or anyone else who has gained peace of mind or wisdom from following Pirsig's scenario. As I said above, one's philosophy is a personal choice. Ron: I agree, I do not wish to disparage you either. As long as we are both open to dialog, we can still enjoy an exciting discussion. Thanks for your willingness to communicate. 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/
