Hi Michael --
[HP]:
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?
[MP]:
In answer to the first paragraph; yes, I think you've got it
about right, although I'd note that IMO the potentiality exists
*always* and any actuality is only *a* realization of it.
And yes, I tend to side with the author (but see below why)
In answer to the first question; if I appear ambivalent, its
because the stew is still cooking in my head. I'm still trying to
sort out exactly what Quality actually is in a way I can hang
on to it and not have it degrade into something less than it is.
I have to this point understood it to be much like my analogy
of magnetism, only a a magnetism with no source; it is an
over-riding slant to reality that leads patterns to form one way
or the other based on the pattern that already exists precisely
at the point when the pattern cuts through an experience, and
always in a direction of what we would see as being "better"
relative to that pattern; a metaphysical bias of sorts. But a bias
with no source; neither in the patterns, nor outside of them.
That's a difficult concept to hang on to. I have a tendency to
slip into considering it to be more "real" than that, and that's
where trouble starts. I happen to have a far greater affinity to
what I get from ZAMM in this same sense than I do from Lila.
Lila seemed to bog things down where ZAMM left it all in a
more Zen state.
In answer to the second question; my "theistic persuasion"
may be a stumbling block, and it may also be my only clear path.
Its not clear yet to me which (if either) it is. My theistic beliefs
are highly intellectual I think relative to what people here consider
theistic. (In fact, I'm certain of this.) I don't believe they are in the
way of my struggle with understanding Quality because I have,
for now, largely separated the two. I am pursuing an intellectual
path in my theistic pattern in theistic faith that I will come out the
other end more whole than I came in. Call it "suspension of belief",
call it intuition, but I see reflections in Quality of everything I have
learned through my theistic understanding, and it is this which
more than anything allows me to suspend my theistic hesitancy to
enter such apparently atheistic intellectual pursuits.
That's a more comprehensive answer that I expected, Michael, and a candid
one at that. To be sure I understand your philosophical position, I'd like
to extract the points I consider important, adding a comment or question
where I'm confused.
1. "Potentiality exists *always* and any actuality is only *a* realization
of it."
Agreed. I would say that any realization is a weak and temporary
image.
2. "I have to this point understood [Quality] to be much like my analogy
of magnetism, only a magnetism with no source."
For me Pirsig's Value (Quality) is more like a magnetic field with no
magnet.
(I have not been able to unravel the patterns.)
3. "I see reflections in Quality of everything I have learned through my
theistic understanding."
Not sure I understand whether the "reflections" refer to your beliefs
or to
patterns of Quality.
4. "It is this which more than anything allows me to suspend my theistic
hesitancy to enter such apparently atheistic intellectual pursuits."
I translate this to mean "testing" your theism in an atheistic
environment.
I'm not clear what you mean by Essence, so can't fully answer
the third question. I'm also not sure what you mean by "fitting
for a deity." I don't see that Quality has anything to do with a Deity.
On the other hand, Quality has a perfectly good chance of IMO
not just being "fitting for" theistic understanding, but actually being
synonymous with it. But that sort of talk generates a lot of
negative reactions here so I tend to not get far in exploring that
concept in this context. Too bad, IMO because for me that is
the most intriguing thing about Quality; its direct relationship to
a pure, culturally unadulterated theistic experience.
The recurring problem I see in all this talk is one of dogma.
To realize the potential human evolutionary revolution something
like MoQ offers requires a degree of dogmatic static latching that,
ultimately, appears to be of a level that will kill any true MoQ
understanding. Either we all go off and understand Quality in
ever increasing ways, never latching any of them to the point of
complete intellectual MoQ anarchy, or we latch one, some or
many, and it begins to die.
In my theistic context, this is a little like grasping that the
Christian Churches as we know them are probably quite
not what Christ had intended. Blasphemy in some circles,
but if you read His words and those said of Him, even as
the Churches would have us read them, there is little
evidence that what we have now was what He was
hoping we'd do with His teaching, life, sacrifice and if
you believe resurrection. We haven't got much choice but
to go with what we have, as we can't exactly ask Him to
step in and sort it all out for us, so we go with what we have.
But I see the arguments going on here today in MoQ and
can't help but wonder how far off the track MoQ will be
1000 years from now. MoQ is not a religion, but it's right
on that edge that in 200 years it easily could be.
I view the MoQ as a cult movement, which has produced much "negative
reaction" here. It has all the typical attributes: formal indoctrination
(required reading of LILA and ZMM), the leader's word recited in answer to
every question, alternative beliefs or theories (particularly those of a
religious or spiritual nature) disparaged, self-criticism resisted, and a
flock of acolytes following. As far as Christianity is concerned, its
mythos (a man-god born of a virgin with the ability to reincarnate himself)
was largely the work of Paul of Tarsus, and little of what Jesus actually
taught survived the papal edits for the King James Bible.
What I mean by Essence can be defined as the absolute, uncreated source of
all that is. Or, to use your analogy, the magnet whose polarized field
repels otherness from sensibility to create difference, while providing the
attractive force to heal the breach. No mystic dogma or epiphany is needed
to realize Value; it is the existential field of our everyday experience.
We divide it up into the antimonies of
goodness and badness, orderly and chaotic, beautiful and ugly, static and
dynamic, worthy and trite, and our experience manifests these value
sensibilities as finite beingness.
IMO the world does not need another religion; it needs understanding --
specifically a philosophy of life based on man's unique value sensibility
and reasoning capacity. I envision an era in which the individual will
realize that he/she is the choicemaker of the universe, acting on his/her
own authority, and guided by the moral principle of rational, self-directed
value.
As you can see, no flak jacket or helmet is necessary (for this participant,
anyway), and I appreciate the frankness with which you've revealed your
position. I fear that too many cooks may spoil the stew you've got cooking,
so this may not be the right moment to add my "seasoning". I'll be happy to
answer any specific questions you may have concerning Essentialism, but
would rather that you garnered as much as you need from the MoQ before
exploring it in detail with you.
Thanks for the clear and open assessment of your thinking to date, Michael,
and let me know when you're ready to consider an alternative view.
All the best,
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/
