Andre and Bo --
I hope you have observed a fundamental difference between the MoQ, as you interpret it, and my valuistic philosophy. Both of you dismiss or reject Protagoras's maxim "Man is the measure of all things," and I believe Pirsig does, too. If this dialogue achieves nothing else, it will be my aim to confront you with the fact (yes, it is a fact) that man himself is the sole arbiter and judge of what is good, moral, or esthetically pleasing, and their negative counterparts.
In other words, in the absence of human sensibility, Value simply does not exist. The universe does not evolve to Quality, atoms do not respond to Value, and Morality is distinctly a human invention. Based on this truth, let me bounce back some assertions you have made or quoted. (I've emphasized certain words and phrases to demonstrate my point.)
[Andre on 8/6]:
Because goodness strives towards harmony. WE LIKE harmony in simplicity. Badness is just messy and is used as a 'driving force' toward good. If all were perfect from the start we would not be here.
[Andre, quoting Pirsig]:
Quality has the universe. 'Particles 'prefer' to do what they do. An individual particle is not absolutely committed to one predictable behaviour'...it 'is just a very consistent pattern of preferences'. And just look around you and at the night sky to REALIZE what wonderful preferences have been combined.
[Bo on 8/7]:
Quality gives DIRECTION to existence, hence DQ/SQ.
It's the very essence of the MOQ that GOODNESS INCREASES with every level and that the upper REGARDS the lower as "no good" and the lower NOT RECOGNIZING any upper, but regarding it as polluting of own value.
As I said, the DQ/SQ division is a postulate - an axiom - nothing can prove it except the BETTER (non-paradoxical) EXISTENCE IT CREATES. Good and evil is a result of the level arrangement. The fact that "pain hurts" needs no consideration and philosophical deliberations.
In all of these statements the assumption is made that "creating", "liking", "preferring", "realizing" "struggling", "recognizing", and "bettering" are functional attributes of the material universe or its patterned constituents. No mention is made of man and his subjective sensibility, as if to deny that we ourselves are accountable for the realization and appreciation of value. Instead of suggesting a cosmic role for human beings, this notion in effect regresses philosophy to the animism of the ancient alchemists.
Andre does leave an opening, however, in his response to my criticism that the MoQ is basically "an evolutionary source starting with evil."
[Andre on 8/6]:
I do not agree Ham. It starts with potential.
Well, that at least shows some promise for a logical ontogeny. But where does MoQ's author
mention this, or even hint at it? Bo? Anyone? Looking for more sensible insight, 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/
