Ham to Andre and Bo (but Bodvar can speak for himself if he wishes to do so)
I hope you have observed a fundamental difference between the MoQ, as you interpret it, and my valuistic philosophy. Andre: You betcha. Ham: Both of you dismiss or reject Protagoras's maxim "Man is the measure of all things," and I believe Pirsig does, too. Andre: Pirsig suggests that 'Man' as a collection of PoV's is 'a participant in the creation of things' (ZMM p 368). Ham: 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. Andre: You are assigning to 'man himself' an independent reality. This is typical S/O thinking. You thereby suggest that 'Man' has absolutely no relationship with/connection with the inorganic and organic PoV's from which it is derived. This is nonsense. Ham: 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. Andre: Read Chapter 8 of Lila, Ham. It starts with: 'The idea that the world is composed of nothing but moral value sounds impossible at first'. Must give you two observations though: imho the world does appear to evolve (back) toward Quality (i.e Harmony, Good). The 'human invention bit: well, Pirsig posited it, backed up by rediscovering its social roots with the Sophists, cross-referencing it with the Tao, the Buddha etc as the oldest idea in the world, and applying it within our scientific, S/O dominated intellect and thereby arguing a way of understanding the world which is far more inclusive and makes a lot more sense (by denying the primacy of subjects and objects and positing Quality as the primary 'source'. But, to stretch my point a bit farther, the quantum particle has said that it prefers what it does based on a response to quality because that particle is part of me ...and you! ( are you happy to be here?? Arggh lets not get into that one...I hope you follow my reasoning). Ham: 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: I do not know what you mean by 'functional attributes of the material universe' not 'cosmic role for human beings'. Again you separate out objective and subjective while the MoQ clearly identifies material/ substance (objective) with inorganic PoV's and human beings (subjective) with organic PoV's ,the only difference being their different evolutionary levels. And this is what leads Pirsig to , then, suggest that 'Mind is contained in static inorganic patterns. Matter is containd in static intellectual patterns...and capable of each containing to other without contradiction'. (Lila, p 159) Ham: Looking for more sensible insight, Andre: Only if you are willing to see and hear Ham. For what it is worth 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/
