Michael [Bodvar/Marsha mentioned] --
After writing it all out, I realized magnetism would be a better analogy;
Its there only as something affecting things which it can affect. Does a
magnetic field exist outside those things which are affected by it?
Hard to say, right? Only way to know is to use something that can
measure it without being affected by it, and that, by definition would
not be able to measure it ...
We say something has Value or Quality only in so much as those are
ways in which we measure our experiences. ...
You raise an interesting point which supports the principle that values are
relative to the phenomena by which they are measured. My epistemology is
actually an inversion of this principle. I believe that phenomena are
actualized relative to the subject's sensibility to value.
... But just because our ruler isn't there to measure it (and then in our
particular way) does not by default lead to the conclusion that the thing
which we measure using that ruler ceases to exist if we cease to exist.
That's logical, of course. But if our only proof for a thing's existence is
our measurement of it (Parmenides' theory), it's just as logical to conclude
that our measure of the thing's value is what creates it. And that happens
to be my philosophical position.
Please note, however, that it's not Value, "independently", which creates or
actualizes. Rather, it is the agent's value-sensibility. Because this
sensibility is unique to the individual, it will vary from subject to
subject.
So, in the end, I still agree and disagree. If that makes any sense.
Well, the sense I make of your equivocation is that we are not entirely in
agreement. It simply means that your epistemology differs from mine with
respect to metaphysical primacy.
I did not appreciate that you separated actuality and potential
in those terms. I'm just not sure I see RMP's Quality as having
that separation. I could be wrong.
No, you are quite correct. Pirsig has not made that separation, and I think
it discredits his ontology.
Earlier today, Bodvar Skutvik posted a Pirsig (ZMM) quote to Andre that
would appear to refute my argument against an independent Quality. It was
posed in the form of a question::
".....that before the beginning of the earth, before the sun
and the stars were formed, before the primal generation of
anything, Quality existed. Sitting there, having no mass of
its own, no energy of its own, not in anyone's mind
because there wasn't anyone, not in space because there
was no space either, not anywhere...this Quality still
existed?''
Marsha was quick to point that Bo had misquoted Pirsig. Apparently it was
not "Quality" but "the law of Gravity" that was alleged to exist prior to
mankind. My own opinion is that neither of these assertions can be true.
Quality can't exist without subjective discernment, and a "law" is an axiom
or principle intellectualized by man.
In any case, it's clear that Pirsig wanted to support his thesis that
Quality (Value) is "the primary empirical reality". This, despite the fact
that an esthetic attribute is a subjective realization, hence is "secondary"
to the primary source. I suspect that you accept my logic that potentiality
is prior to actualization, but still want to side with the author on the
primacy of Quality.
If I've surmised your position correctly, can you tell me why you remain
ambivalent on this issue? Does it have something to do with your theistic
persuasion? More directly, do you believe the Quality concept is more
fitting for a deity than what is implied by Essence?
I'd appreciate your candor here. Thanks, Michael.
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/
