On Jan 6, 2010, at 1:37 PM, Ham Priday wrote: > Greetings Bruce and Magnus -- > > > Although I haven't had the pleasure of talking to either of you, this > question doesn't make any sense, dialectically, epistemologically, or > metaphysically. The fault does not lie with you, Bruce, but with an author > who has posited an externalized esthetic/intellectual property as the world's > Creator. This avoids having to deal with a "supra-natural" or transcendent > source which is anathema to postmodern philosophers. > > As Magnus, who I assume speaks for the MoQ, says: > > >> * Quality is supposed to be all of reality. If Quality had an opposite, >> the reality it was trying to encompass has to be larger than Quality. >> That would mean it had failed to encompass all of reality. I.e. Quality >> doesn't have an opposite. > > Pirsig has equated Quality with Value, stating that "a thing that has no > value doesn't exist:." His epistemology is correct, in that things > (objective phenomena) are experiential constructs or representations of > value-sensibility. He is wrong, however, in assuming that Quality or Value > exists apart from that sensibility. If there is no sensibility, there is no > experience, in which case neither things nor Value can be realized. An > unrealized world doesn't exist. The "opposite" of Quality is Nothingness. > > This isn't an issue of chaos vs. quality;
Hi Ham, Exactly!!! The minute you compare the two you are so far off the track you're swimming with an octopus. Marsha > it's the question of sensibility without a referent. From a metaphysical > perspective, the only entity that possesses unreferenced sensibility is the > absolute Source. In my ontogeny, sensibility is split off (negated) from the > Source to actualize existence. This allows for Value to be experienced > differentially by a free agent which is itself value-sensibility. Yes, I am > talking about human awareness in an otherness of appearance divided by > nothingness. The "otherness" of existence is the realization or experience > of differentiated value; "nothingness" is what accounts for the > differentiation. > > Man's existential dilemma is that he exists only in "the present"; he cannot > negate the nothingness from which he came and which will be his demise. Only > the Absolute Source can do that. In that sense, Pirsig has it right: without > Value there is no existence. But it is man's value-sensibility transformed > into experience, NOT VALUE itself, that creates the world of appearances. > It's most unfortunate, in my opinion, that Mr. Pirsig failed to acknowledge > that the realization of Value (existential reality) is contingent upon human > sensibility. > > Your Powerpoint presentation certainly puts disparate concepts together in a > graphically intriguing manner, Bruce. It's probably just the kind of > presentation I need to explain Essentialism to this august group. > > Thanks to you both for providing a logical analysis of the MoQ thesis as > interpreted by the acolytes. > > Best regards, > 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/ _______________________________________________________________________ Shoot for the moon. Even if you miss, you'll land among the stars... 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/
