Ron --
I enjoy dialoguing with you, mostly because you keep and open mind and
strive to make disparate concepts accommodate the "general scheme" of
Pirsig's philosophy. This is also what I tried to do when I joined this
forum back in 2002. If I am to contribute anything to this discussion,
however, it will be to point out the differences and what I see as the
shortcomings of the MoQ with respect to my philosophy of Essence. I
sincerely hope you can understand and appreciate my position, despite these
differences.
[Ron]:.
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 themselves.
That is strange for a philosopher who wants to change society's perspective
of reality. Freedom of choice is commendable; but isn't it the
philosopher's obligation to define the choices available and present his own
ontology clearly so that his readers can make that choice? I don't think
Theism qualifies as a cosmology or an ontology, and Nihilism professes no
beliefs.
That leaves cosmology (as derived from empirical data by Science) and
ontogeny (metaphysical theories posited by various philosophers).
In the Metaphysics of Quality it rejects no one on the basis
of their cosmology in order to utilize the author's 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.
Tell me where Essentialism stifles free wilI. Do you think including a
hypothesis to account for the creation (experience) of the universe makes my
philosophy "universal"? Had I omitted it, you would complain that it was
incomplete. I do not "force" my concepts on anyone; like Pirsig, I
encourage the reader to select those ideas that are meaningful for him or
her. So I fail to see how my worldview denies anyone the freedom to decide
for himself.
The point I have tried to make about Freedom is that it can only exist where
the cognizant agent is independent of external authority, including the
primary source itself. Because Essence is absolute and perfect Oneness, it
needs no freedom. If we were "pieces", "emanations" or "patterns" of
Essence, we could not be free creatures. I've made the same point about
Quality. If the universe is intrinsically moral, and we are its patterns,
there would be no immorality or evil in existence -- more importantly, no
need to choose our values. This is clearly not the case, so that "being
made of Quality" makes individual freedom logically impossible.
The universe is amoral IN ORDER THAT the value agent can freely choose what
is good or bad for itself, relative to its source and its world of
difference. This is what I see as man's role in life. It's the only way
freedom and morality make sense. Ultimately, the individual self reclaims
the value estranged from him at creation, completing the circle of
existence. Surely you don't equate this with Theism?
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.
What's 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.
I have no "beef" with Pirsig. At the same time, leaving the ontogeny undone
on the pretense that the reader would otherwise "not be free" to work out
the details seems silly. The result is that the author's readers are
confused, come to conflicting conclusions, and argue day and night about
what he really meant. This does not bode well for Pirsig's legacy as a
philosopher.
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.
Excuse me, but that's plain nonsense. Science "leaves the door open"
because it doesn't have the answers, and never will. I don't claim to have
the answers, either. Instead, I present a thesis for consideration which
accounts for creation, acknowledges physical reality as differentiated
experience, is consistent with the ex nihilo principle, and suggests man's
purpose imn an anthropomorphic universe. Essentialism represents the
personal belief system of a scientifically educated individual who has spent
seven decades of his life in the quest for understanding. I offer it on a
"take it, in whole or in part, or leave it" basis. What is there to
"negotiate"?
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.
The only "excluded middle" that I have violated is spelled out in Cusanus'
First Principle: "The first principle cannot be other either than an other
or than nothing and likewise is not opposed to anything." Paraphrasing this
principle, I assert that "Essence is "not other", because it is not other
than any [particular] other, even though "not-other" and "other" [once
derived] are opposed." While this precept "gains a measure of" security for
the believer, I make no claim that "certainty" exists anywhere in the world.
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.
From my perspective Bo was too betoken with the Quality hierarchy to
consider my metaphysical position, although he at least acknowledged SOM as
man's reality. That such an accommodation "isn't needed" is a matter of
opinion. IMO, SOMETHING is needed to provide the MoQ with a metaphysical
foundation.
Thanks for allowing us another round, Ron. Please give some thought to the
points I've made above about Freedom and what qualifies as a free agent.
Essentially yours,
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/
