Hi Ham, Since this forum is for MoQ, I try to stick with that term if I can. Quality has a number of mystical connotations. Perhaps similar to Essence (as I understand it). Others call it the Divine, or the Tao. It is a metaphysics of betterness. We interpret this betterness in human terms, as is determined by our sensibility. I am content to call this essence Quality, although I may not have the same understanding as others more fluent with the structure and dogma put forth by Pirsig.
I find a lot of similarities between science and philosophy. Particularly with reference to their structure of knowing. There is similar logic in both, and both seem to deduce and infer in terms of substructures and systems. I would agree that science cannot measure the sensibility or quality of things. I would add, yet. The study of consciousness contains science, philosophy, and the paranormal (physical but not scientifically measured. There is also the mystical and religious in the study of consciousness. All overlap quite significantly, it is just that the languages are different. Perhaps there is quality as subjective and Quality as an expression of the universe. An observer would not be required for the expression. The point being made by MoQ, imo, is that this expression is progressing and has a direction which can be modeled intellectually. Such intellectualization then criticizes itself and we then deem it to go beyond the intellectual. In Zen, it is said that "the mountains are the mountains, and the rivers are the rivers, and then one gains understanding, and the mountains are then the mountains and the rivers are then the rivers. The same but different. Kind of like music being appreciated by the illiterate and by the concert master. It is still the same music. I do not know if there is any reason why science could never create an accurate representation of Essence. I suggest the term Prime Essence both because it represents something that came before, and because it was primed to be negated. If the universe existed as a flat line, or a still guitar string. At some point is was plucked and positive and negative creation began. Like a still pond where a stone is tossed. A wave has opposite domains, that can only recognize each other through comparison. This recognition is also compared to their being a flat pond, or Essence if you will. If Science is the measurement of things, then I suppose we couldn't use science for Essence. But, our increased understanding of everything there is, may provide more intuition as to its nature. Mark On Nov 27, 2009, at 9:55:51 AM, "Ham Priday" <[email protected]> wrote: From: "Ham Priday" <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [MD] Is Quality Different from (Mother) Nature? Date: November 27, 2009 9:55:51 AM PST To: [email protected] Hi Mark -- > Hi Ham, > Yes, I was off topic there. I was speaking of the paranormal. > However, there is [no?] way to much dispute about something > that current science can't measure. There are a number of > credible research institutes studying this, but it is really a topic > for another forum. ... Science should not be regarded as a foundation for Philosophy. The empirical world and its dynamics are by practical necessity designed to conform with cause-and-effect and the relational principles of logic. Whether transcendental concepts like metaphysical reality are "a topic for another forum" or not, they are the heart of Philosophy. > My point is that if different levels have their own consciousness, > then it is possible for that to envelop individuals. In my opinion, > there is no possible way that our sensibilities are confined to our > bodies. But, like I said, not appropriate for this forum. > Let's talk politics... If you really think politics are a proper topic for a philosophical forum, you should be talking to Arlo, Platt, or Andre. > I believe that Quality does transcend existence. Existence is simply > an expression of Quality. Similar to a painting being an expression of > the artist. You can replace the word Quality with a number of words > used for this kind of thing, such as prime essence. Okay, let's use "prime essence". I prefer it to "quality" which doesn't exist until it is realized and measured. What is Quality without an observer? Do you suppose the "quality" of the Mona Lisa exists on the canvas independently of an observer? Would be there if there were no one around to admire it? Would Nature or the physical universe realize it? Awareness of value, excellence, beauty or quality (and their counterparts) is a sensibility of the human being whose experience is 'the measure of all things'. The human body and its neuro-sensory system are the biological "instrument" of sensibility. But the Value of which it is sensible comes from the prime essence. This is what Science, with all its investigative resources, is unable to discover. It is not something you can research and confirm from empirical evidence. Best regards, Ham _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ > Thanks for that post. Not to get to far away from this forum, > but there is a definite overlap of sensibility. That is, it is not > confined to the lonely individual. There may be actual feeling of > a societal consciousness, or at least a pairing consciousness. > How this is actually transferred from one person to another, such > as the feeling of love or of fear, is hard to detect in physical terms, > that is scientifically. However, I would have to assume that each cell > in our bodies actually senses the overall consciousness of our entire > selves (this is more than the intellectual brain of course). In fact, > because of this conscious overlap cells can sense damage at a far > region of the body before there is time for biochemical communication. > > In the same way, sensibility can be transferred between people at > rates faster than the speed of light, in fact instantaneously. This is > because they overlap. It is in this way, that I understand the levels > of MoQ. Each one creates a higher consciousness. It would seem > to me that Value sensibility is a shared phenomenon as well as a > lonely individual one. Again, this is not through communication or > particle exchange in anyway, but simply through connection by > an overriding consciousness. With all due respect, Mark, I think you're straining too hard to accommodate the MoQ hierarchy. Nothing in D'Souza's essay endorses a multi-level value system or a collective conscience. The author only suggests a sensibility that "transcends the physical". To me, this defines the individual's sensibility to Value. Why do you say there's "a definite overlap of sensibility"? Two lovers share the passion of a relationship but not their individual sensibilities. Two gourmets may enjoy an entree of their choosing, but the flavors and succulence of the dish are experienced (sensed) individually. Sensibility is patently subjective; there is no such thing as collective consciousness. There is only correspondent behavior to a common stumulus. The feelings, the values, the satisfactions, and the very apprehension of the stimulus are experiences of the individual subject. It is axiomatic that social values like Freedom, Justice, and Compassion are universally appreciated, which is the basis of morality. But societal values reflect the value-sensibility of the individual members. Sensibility is proprietary to the cognizant subject. Any "overlapping of sensibility" is a behavioral (objective) response, not a subjective aggregate or collection. To view value-sensibility as an aspect of some collective consciousness is to misconstrue the dynamics of epistemology. I maintain that consciousness reaches its highest level in human beings, that it is a process which encompasses feeling, emotion, experience, apprehension, intellection, and conceptualization. No two individuals share in these subjective functions, except as they respond with similar behavior. I know this is promoting an SOMist position in this forum. But inasmuch as the Quality hierarchy never transcends existence, Pirsig is describing the empirical world in which the mode of experience is awareness of being. That experience is subjective, and the being of this world is the individual's experiential construct of sensed value. > For some reason, your post brought that out of me. Go figure, > stream of consciousness. Probably doesn't make sense. And > certainly not very scientific or philosophical. Perhaps deeper. Indeed, Value goes very deep. For me it is the creative power of Essence. But any "stream of consciousness" is differentiated and relative to the individuated Self. If the world were not constructed in this way, there would be no realized value, no experienced phenomena, nor a free agent to choose among them. Essentially speaking, 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/ 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/
