Hi Ham, Thanks for your post below. It is quite easy to say that Quality cannot be defined, and then go forward and define it. We could say, "not this, not that" which leaves the interpretation up to the listener. We could say that Quality is above interpretation and thus elevate it to a mystical pedestal which cannot be refuted. Quality by definition is relational. It requires objects, and something to value them. One could say that Quality is beyond that. If so, perhaps a different word should be used, like God or Nature. If Quality is not subjective, then it is not quality. One could simply say that a higher level of expression is occurring. Of course, higher is also subjective unless we all agree on the same assumptions. Then we are talking about mass hypnosis and where is the freedom there?
Mark On Dec 13, 2009, at 10:34:13 AM, "Ham Priday" <[email protected]> wrote: From: "Ham Priday" <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [MD] MOQ's "to be or not to be" Date: December 13, 2009 10:34:13 AM PST To: [email protected] Greetings, Platt -- [Quoting Pirsig]: > "You are correct in saying that the revolutionary assertion of the > Metaphysics of Quality is that "Quality' or "value" is the fundamental > constituent of the universe. However, the classification of metaphysics > into monism, dualism and pluralism, seems to me to be an arbitrary > classification where none is needed. The Metaphysics of Quality is all > three: Quality is the monism. Static quality and Dynamic Quality are > the dualism, and the four levels of static quality contain a pluralism > of things." > > Here we see the beauty of the MOQ. It covers all the philosophical > bases. And now I see that my error in attempting to reconcile the > intellectual level with the MOQ was to see it only from the > static/Dynamic split. But, I have an excuse. Our language, the means > by which we find and communicate meaning, passionately embraces > the subject/object division, so passionately in fact that we can only > escape its grip with colossal effort. ... Let's look at this Pirsig comment. He asserts that the classification of metaphysics into dualism and pluralism is "arbitrary" and not needed. Yet, the division between intellectual awareness and experiential otherness is a dualism, and the physical universe is pluralistic. If "Quality (Value) is the monism," as he says, how do we arrive at the intellect that divides it into patterns of experience? Even if the "patterned" (pluralistic) universe is an "illusion", it is our awareness of reality. By definition a monism cannot contain a pluralism. Reality is ultimately either absolute or divided. Unrealized Value is an oxymoron. Quality must be realized for it to exist, and in order to experience Value (as 'qualia') we must divide it. Therefore the operandus modi of conscious sensibility is differentiation. I accept Pirsig's ontology insofar as it posits Value as "the fundamental constituent of the universe." But intellectually "leveling" Quality is not a magic wand that turns it into a monism. We cannot posit Quality as the fundamental ground of a "monistic" reality if the values we experience are "pluralistic". I submit that this is an equivocation on the author's part. He makes no allowance for a transcendent Reality that IS a monism. His alleged "metaphysics" is not a metaphysics at all, but a euphemized paradigm of experiential reality (i.e., the differentiated existential universe). Respectfully submitted, 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/
