Marsha, Craig --
[Marsha]:
I haven't the slightest idea what you want. Who cares what "classical
philosophers" regard as metaphysics? What good
does it do to look backwards? The MOQ is a synthesis of Eastern wisdom
and Western intellect. Dynamic Quality is
Ultimate Reality, static quality is conventional reality. Quarks and
leptons are static patterns of value within
conventional reality. I'm sure you understand the difference
between an independent TiTs and patterns.
I want what I assume everyone else here wants, Marsha. As I told Ron, I'd
like to see more clarity in the concepts expressed on this forum, leading to
more accord among the participants. There's a tendency to accept Pirsig's
statements dogmatically, which I can't believe was his intention.
Understanding comes from dialectical analysis and fresh insights, not from
quoting scripture as in the game of "Pirsig says". As inspiring and poetic
as the author's novels may be, his thesis is not above repute by
philosophers who have gone before, and his logic is not infallible. We
don't serve the legacy of any philosopher by refusing to challenge his work.
Quarks and leptons have no value to me, and I see no difference between a
pattern and a thing-in-itself. Both are intellectual constructs. For
someone who has taken eight undergraduate classes in philosophy, I find it
astonishing that you would so readily dismiss all that has gone before.
Craig just presented me with a similar complaint. Responding to my
statement that the MoQ falls short of what classical philosophers would
regard as a metaphysics, he quipped:
But not short of what MODERN philosophers regard as metaphysics.
Philosophical theory is not a cumulative discipline like the physical
sciences. Empirical knowledge changes as we learn more about energy forces
and their affect on the physical universe and its macro and micro
constituents. Philosophy changes as we learn more about synthesizing ideas
of the great thinkers. The work of philosophers throughout the ages
constitutes a body of intellectual thought from which we may draw certain
conclusions and categorize the major concepts as Platonic, Aristotelian,
Cartesian, Kantian, Spenserian, etc. Metaphysics has traditionally been an
important element of these concepts. The value of an idea is timeless, and
it is small-minded to regard an idea as having special significance simply
because it is "modern".
[Marsha continues]:
An individual can directly experience Dynamic Quality, but cannot
know it. Static quality (conventional reality), made up of static
patterns of value, can be known only by conceptually constructing the
knowledge and not by direct experience. Thinking subjects and
objects are fundamental reality is an illusion. As far as I
understand it, RMP denied an independent self, not the individual.
You cannot deny the self without denying the individual. This notion of the
individual as "a collection of interrelated and interconnected patterns" is
nothing but a ruse to avoid acknowledging the self. Personally, I find it
offensive. An individual so vapid and hollow that it belongs to no one, has
no cognizant locus, no proprietary sensibility, no free choice, and only a
biological connection to the universe, is the equivalent of an insentient
robot. It is the most demeaning concept of human beingness that I can
imagine.
I do not consider Dynamic Quality chaos in any sense, but I have not had
Mr. Pirsig's experiences and cannot know what he meant when he used the
term.
Then he hasn't communicated this concept very well, has he? Why should pure
Quality be chaotic? Indeed, why should the undifferentiated, uncreated
source of existential reality require "a stabilizing force to protect
Dynamic progress from degeneration"? Why should Dynamic Quality not
survive without static quality". Must one consort with American Indians to
understand this principle? That's a bit daffy, if you ask me.
When I suggested that the pure state of anything cannot be chaotic, Craig
said:
As long as both views are consistent, they are equally supported by logic.
The better view is determined by its explanatory value.
Which is "the better view", then? I posit Absolute Essence as the
uncreated, undifferentiated, and unchanging source from which all otherness
is negated. Pirsig posits DQ as "the Quality of freedom [that] creates this
world in which we live, these patterns of static quality, the quality of
order [that] preserves our world." Which view has more "explanatory value"?
Craig? Marsha?
--Ham
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
At 02:44 PM 6/23/2009, you wrote:
Marsha, Platt [Ron mentioned] --
[Marsha]:
Reductionism: "Everything in the Universe can be understood in terms
of quarks and leptons."
[Platt]:
Nicely summarized. Ask a reductionist "Where do quarks and leptons
come from?" you'll get a blank stare or from an honest reductionist the
reply, "Don't ask."
Quarks and leptons notwithstanding, the universe is understood in terms of
subjects and objects. This has nothing to do with theoretical physics or
scientific principles. It's an empirical truth that we know from
experience. Just because we don't know precisely what objects are or what
the nature of "selfness" is doesn't mean they don't exist or that they
must be "explained away" in order for us to be "enlightened". That's no
philosophical breakthrough; it's just plain foolishness.
If we insist on being reductionists, we need to acknowledge that
fundamental division of existence beyond which all else is speculation.
Although Descartes is no longer fashionable among the elitists, his Cogito
stands as a lasting reminder that existence is an experiential duality.
Ron recently quoted LILA to reveal Phaedrus's train of thought on this
issue:
"But he realized that sooner or later he was going to have to stop carping
about how bad subject-object metaphysics was and say something positive
for a change. Sooner or later he was going to have to come up with a way
of dividing Quality that was better than subjects and objects. He would
have to do that or get out of metaphysics entirely. It's all right to
condemn somebody else's bad metaphysics but you can't replace it with a
metaphysics that consists of just one word."
The problem with this line of reasoning is that metaphysics is not just
"words" (one or many) but concepts explained by words. Pirsig tried to
make the seven-letter word Quality a metaphysical concept, which it cannot
be without an ontology to support it. So, "to come up with a way of
dividing Quality that was better than subjects and objects," he
substituted the adjectives "static" and "dynamic". Then, under the
influence of native-American culture supplemented with a little peyote, he
had an epiphany of sorts.
"To cling to Dynamic Quality alone apart from any static patterns is to
cling to chaos. He saw that much can be learned about Dynamic Quality by
studying what it is not rather than futilely trying to define what it is.
Static quality patterns are dead when they are exclusive, when they demand
blind obedience and suppress Dynamic change. But static patterns,
nevertheless, provide a necessary stabilizing force to protect Dynamic
progress from degeneration. Although Dynamic Quality, the Quality of
freedom, creates this world in which we live, these patterns of static
quality, the quality of order, preserve our world. Neither static nor
Dynamic Quality can survive without the other."
The "chaos" he attributed to "Dynamic Quality alone" may have been a
result of his altered state of mind, as there is no logic to support the
view that a primary source is chaotic in the absence of patterns. On the
contrary, a pure source -- Quality, Value, or Essence -- has no disparate
elements but is homogeneous, whereas chaos is defined as "a confused
heterogeneous agglomeration." Obviously, Phaedrus's focus was limited to
what was "inside the box" (experiential patterns) rather than the primary
source or nature of the box. In fact, the MoQ thesis never transcends the
physical universe. It is a hierarchical ontology based on a euphemistic or
"romantic" notion of Quality. As such the MoQ falls seriously short of
what classical philosophers would regard as a metaphysics.
Whether physical existence is ultimately "real" or not, the S/O split is
the fundamental reality of existence. We can't make a metaphysics out of
objective reality any more than we can impart Quality to it. What is
sadly missing in Pirsig's philosophy is the sensible agent, without which
neither quality nor value can be realized.
Thanks for your time and, hopefully, your understanding,
Ham
Ham,
I haven't the slightest idea what you want. Who cares what "classical
philosophers" regard as metaphysics? What good does it do to look
backwards? The MOQ is a synthesis of Eastern wisdom and Western
intellect. Dynamic Quality is Ultimate Reality, static quality is
conventional reality. Quarks and leptons are static patterns of value
within conventional reality. I'm sure you understand the difference
between an independent TiTs and patterns.
An individual can directly experience Dynamic Quality, but cannot know it.
Static quality (conventional reality), made up of static patterns of
value, can be known only by conceptually constructing the knowledge and
not by direct experience. Thinking subjects and objects are fundamental
reality is an illusion. As far as I understand it, RMP denied an
independent self, not the individual.
I do not consider Dynamic Quality chaos in any sense, but I have not had
Mr. Pirsig's experiences and cannot know what he meant when he used the
term.
Marsha
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/
