Greetings, Mary --
... and welcome to the foray.
Why do we need an Absolute Source? Kind of negates the whole concept of the MoQ, doesn't it?
Not necessarily. If "DQ" names the creative source of existence, is there any logical reason for this source to be conditional, relational, and divided into levels and patterns? Does an Absolute Source contradict a Metaphysics of Quality? Only if your answer is a definite "yes" can you conclude that positing an Absolute Source "negates" the MoQ concept.
Just for the record, I'm not an avid Pirsig fan. I was initially drawn to this forum (and subsequently to the autjor's novels) because of the emphasis on Value which figures prominantly in my own philosophy. But I'm really an "outsider" who doesn't speak for the MoQ and is tolerated here mainly because many of the participants, like yourself, are seeking alternative views, while the charter members don't want to establish an "exclusionary" policy.
My major challenge to Pirsig is not his "metaphysics", as incomplete as it is, but the peculiar way in which he has coined the term "Quality" to connote an evolutionary driving force independently of its realization by man. Quality (or Value) is a measure of relative worth as judged by an observer. The value of a thing or event depends on a value-sensible agent and a relational system against which to judge its value. Without an observing subject no such appraisal is possible, and Value is not realized.
I believe most of the confusion stems from Pirsig's failure to acknowledge value-sensibility as the essential factor in creating one's experiential reality. His dismissal of the subjective self has forced the acolytes to go through handstands in order to account for consciousness, intellect, morality, and emotional feelings.
Consider the implications of your question:
Why should there be any entity with unreferenced sensibility? What if Quality doesn't have a plan? What if it just makes it up as it goes along?
You see, Mary, I can't address your question because it makes no sense to me.
How can an esthetic feeling devise a "plan"? How can it proceed on its own without a sensible agent to realize it? I don't know how imaginative you are, but I can't envision an "entity" called Quality that creates collections of patterns, one of them human being, and "goes along" independently of its realization. That may be a novelist's euphemism, but it simply isn't a credible metaphysical thesis.
I believe humans are "driven" (not "created") by Value, but only because we are born with an innate sensibility to it. Value represents to us what we lack in essence, and therefore desire in existence. WE convert this sensibility to experience which incrementally actualizes a relational "otherness" that becomes our life-long existence. We are each living in our own experiential universe, the "commonality" of which is assured by the absolute nature of its essential Source.
That's my Essentialism in a nutshell. (Should you be interested, my philosophy is detailed in The Essentialist's Forum at www.essentialism.net/mechanic.htm.) I'll admit that what I've developed is a non-hierarchical, anthropocentric concept. The Pirsigians claim it's just "unenlightened" subject/object metaphysics with a supernatural or "faith-based" twist. But so far they have not accused me of negating the MoQ. I'll let you decide.
Pleased to have your acquaintance, Mary, and thanks for giving me this opportunity to express an alternative view.
Essentially yours, 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/
