Greetings Gentlemen,
Sorry to interrupt, but...
At 01:43 AM 1/26/2009, you wrote:
Hi Bo --
Darwin's evolution theory is science and I "..leave unto science
what science's is". It's when it comes to how life emerged in the
first place that MOQ's adds something useful. The dynamic
"dislike" of inorganic stability resulted in biological stability, which in
turn resulted in social stability, and - finally - intellectual stability.
I find it curious that you (i.e., Pirsig) exhort "instability",
while the rest of mankind is desperately looking for a way to make
the world more stable -- scientifically, socially, economically,
internationally, militarily. Isn't this going against the central
premise that "the dynamic 'dislike' of biological stability" is what
inexorably moves the world to "betterness"? If so, how do you
market the philosophy of dynamic instability to world torn by
instability? Should you even try?
The rest of the world? You do not know what the rest of the world is
desperate for. Those with power would like to scientifically,
economically, internationally, militarily stabilize events to enhance
their power. Most of the humans in the world would like food to feed
their families and a decent job or livelihood to provide the means to do so.
Equating 'dynamic' and 'instability' get you nothing but accused of
using linguistic tricks.
[Ham, previously]:
Difference is negated from Essence with no loss of absolute integrity.
The "aspects" of differentiation and the emergence of otherness in
space/time are precisely what Essence is NOT.
[Bo]:
This is a variety of the fallacious pure Quality of which MOQ is a
corruption, this is wrong: Quality IS the MOQ. I suggest that space,
time and everything that constitutes our existence are "static"
aspects of a "dynamic" Essence, but that would make
Essentialism a copy of the MOQ and I guess that's anathema-
Indeed, "pure Quality", like "pure Value", is fallacious, since they
are both relational. But you have it backwards, Bo. Only an MoQist
would call a developing series of events in time "static". If the
world were static, there could be no whirling electrons or energy
exchanges to create molecules, orbiting planets, bio-genetic
processes, or living species. If you need an example of a dynamic
process, study the evolution of life forms on this planet --
including the civilization of man. The physical universe and
everything in it has been in constant flux since the big
bang. Nothing in existence is stable or static, from a rock in the
desert to the history of mankind. Only Essence is static.
Static (also relational) patterns are overlaid onto a developing
series of events, time being one of the patterns. Essence is a
static pattern like the concept of Quality. Both are conceptual
constructs for something beyond language and overlaid onto developing
mental events. Sorry Ham, but Essence is not off the hook because
you say so.
But would there be any Essence without "man"? Course not and in
that case Essence is a fallout of Man and and Metaphysics of Man
(MOM) is called for. ...
Your rhetorical question reveals what may well be the crux of our
dispute. Man is only a transient observer with no essential
reality. What he senses is the value of Essence. Everything else
is a finite construct of his organic sensibilities. Inasmuch as man
is estranged from Essence, his existence as a being-aware is but a
passing phase of ultimate reality. So your answer is wrong. Man's
existence is derived from Essence and is conditionally dependent on
it. Only Essence is uncreated, independent, and immutable.
Please offer an example of a finite construct. Seems to me they
change, they at least have a coming and going. Show me this
uncreated, independent immutable Essence. Or does it only exist in
your mind? And you cannot use the authority of Philosophy to say it
is so, unless Philosophy is like Monopoly. And that's okay. Games
are fun.
Now let me return the question: Would there be any Quality without
man? (Give this some thought before you answer.) Remember that
Pirsig refused to define Quality, insisting that "we all know what
it is." What if there was no one to sense it, experience it, "know"
it? Where or what would Quality or Value be in the absence of a
sensible observer?
I am fully aware of Man's central role, so central that it can't be
part of argument or - as said a billion times - a MOM is needed,
and IMO as a copy of the MOQ ... fine with me,
it's the Dynamic/Static and static levels that counts.
As said before, without change no pattern could form. Even
discerning a pattern is a process in time. Existence is a dynamic
relational system derived from an uncreated source which has no
relations nor a need to change.
Understanding that time is also a pattern, and change 'uncreated
source' to DQ and I think were set to go.
SOM's "final world" Immanuel Kant postulated that time, space,
causation is "the world for us" while the "inherent properties of the
the universe" (world in itself) is out of reach. This you seemingly
subscribe to, something that makes you an inhabitant of MOQ's
intellectual level, i.e. not the ultimate vantage point.
Kant was right that time, space and causation represent man's world.
However, I would argue that the world is not out of reach, since we
"reach out to it" every day through experience and all our knowledge
comes from it. What Kant, and the existentialists who followed him,
failed to understand is that there is no "in" or "out", and that
what they called the "world-in-itself" is actually the experiential
world that each self actualizes.
Then Kant was not right. One from column A and two from column
B. Is that one of rules for playing Essence?
I have no illusions about the two of us converting each other, but
it's interesting and compared to some moqists you are a true
philosopher.
Playing to the Code of Art, whether painting or writing a philosophy,
is great. I love you both.
.
.
Science does not know its debt to imagination. ~Ralph Waldo Emerson
.
.
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/
