At 02:22 AM 6/24/2009, you wrote:
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.
I agree RMP's statements shouldn't be accepted dogmatically, but what
I wanted from philosophy was a better life experience, not a
philosopher's reputation, and a better life experience is exactly
what I have been lead to. Should I complain that it was too difficult?
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.
Very true! So why, when I am not a professional academic
philosopher, should the MoQ rest on the history of western
philosophy? I think that the MoQ brings together the best of both
the East and the West. imho
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".
The history of philosophical thought is interesting, but leading one
to insight and wisdom should be what make metaphysical concepts significant.
[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 tried to get at this once before, but I'll try again. The
individual is awareness in the quality experience; the self is the
ego, or the conceptually constructed and projected past and
future. The individual is dynamic and spontaneous, while the self is
false and obscures experience. The individual is not this and not
that, but seeing, smelling, tasting, feeling, hearing and
thinking. The self is a false identity built on patterns (memory and
projection). Does this make sense?
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.
It would be chaotic to totally ignore the conventional (patterned)
world. The conventional (patterned) reality is how human functioning
evolved. Totally destroy static patterns of value and there is no
human functioning. Dynamic Quality and static quality are mutually
interdependent. It is from DQ ( the undifferentiated continuum) that
static patterns of value come into being, exist, and pass away.
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?
I still do not understand your explanations of Essence, more than
that I cannot say.
Marsha
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
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
"He who neglects the present moment throws away all he has."
(Friedrich von Schiller)
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/
