Hi Ham, I have an understanding where you are coming from. The difference between essentialism and quality is the source. For you, the source of quality lies in the individual, for MoQ, the source lies beyond, and we are an expression of such quality. Either of these are near impossible to rectify in terms of understanding. I can see the value of both. Is there a way in which we can combine the two?
For example (and this is not new), our interpretation of value creates such. This interpretation however is from a larger system within such value exists, we are privy to its interpretation. I don't want to sound religious, because I do not have such leanings. However, some of these disciplines have been developed over thousands of years by pretty intelligent people. So an analogy of such combination is, that a god placed us here, but gave us the choice to see him or not. Once you define a subject, I immediately try to break that down into its physical components. That is, what makes up the mind? If I relegate it to an interconnected and highly adaptable group of neurons, then such subjects exist elsewhere, and do not need neurons to be such. If you take the subject outside of that framework, then we are dealing with that which cannot be substantiated, at least for now. I have no problem with this, but it places it in the realm of relativism. Mark Hey, Mark -- > For some (MoQ?), reality is: being in the presence of a greater > power. This is not unfounded since gravity seems to be pretty > widespread (at least so I'm told). If such a force is used as a basis, > then one seeks to describe such a force, Ie. Quality. Once such a > thing is described, everything else is fit in. Pirsig would be the > first to say, that it cannot be described, only experienced. > However such belief still requires some outside force. Okay, I know you want to be conciliatory towards Pirsig. But Quality (as Value) is not a "force", so your gravitational analogy is misplaced. Quality doesn't create anything; it's a measure of a thing's worth or value to the sensible subject. We (as subjects) immanently sense the value of whatever we experience relative to everything else. If quality were not relative it would be meaningless. Take away the objects of our experience and value (or quality) disappears. Experiential existence is designed so that a sensible agent can realize the value of its Source on a comparative scale from bad to good, mundane to magnificent, etc. To realize value (quality) a cognizant subject must relate to an ordered system of representative objects. The universe is such a system, and we are its sensible agents. > I haven't felt that Pirsig denies the subjective agent, but only that > this subjective agent is part of a much larger plan (without > intelligence). > If indeed, the denial of essence is used as the fundamental building > block, one still has to ascribe to a larger plan, since we all seem to > negate essence in the same way. A subjective agent without intelligence (cognitive awareness) is a misnomer. "Subject" is defined as "the mind, ego, or agent that sustains or assumes the form of thought or consciousness." So, again, unless the terms "quality" and "subject" are strained by capricious definitions to suit the author's purpose, their common epistemological meaning is inconsistent with the MoQ thesis. > The tail wagging the dog is accurate, if one supposes that individual > sensibility is part of a much larger thing. That is, our ultimate > expression > is under the rule of certain laws. Quality attempts to explain what those > rules are from the standpoint of morality. So indeed, we are being > wagged, but this does not deny personal responsibility. I beg to differ, Mark. If personal responsibililty embraces valuistic judgments such as moral decisions, integrity, justice and compassion, the individual must be free to exercise these judgments. But when you say we survive and behave "because those are the demands of Quality", you are suggesting that we're predetermined to act in accordance with the fixed laws of Nature. This is a denial of the freedom that makes personal responsibility possible. Essentially speaking, Ham _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ On 1/26 at 8:38PM, you said to Krimel: > I may be wrong, but I believe Pirsig would answer the question > of "why survive?" by saying "because those are the demands of > Quality". I'm afraid that's how he would have to answer it. And such an answer reduces human sensibility to a tail wagged by Quality. The absurdity of this convoluted ontology seems to have escaped Krimel. If Quality (Value) "evolves to goodness" for its own sake, morality is fixed by Nature and man is only an anomalous "pattern" in the evolutionary process. This makes the individual life an automaton of the Source and denies meaning or purpose for the life experience. For the life of me, I fail to see how a philosophy that rejects the subjective agent can offer spiritual or moral guidance to mankind. The best moral axiom that can be drawn from the MoQ is "some things are better than others". Since, in the last analysis, Quality's progression to Goodness is automatic, the implied "directive" of a self-serving universe would seem to be simply: "Go with the flow." Why do Pirsigians continue to parse the "levels" of Quality for a more meaningful answer when no other analysis is possible? --Ham _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ [Krimel] I don't think that "satisfaction" is a criterion for truth. It is a happy coincidence when knowledge makes us happy but I fear that often it is just a sign that we are on the wrong path. I think it is true that I will die one day but I don't find that terribly satisfying. If all you want is beliefs that make you happy why not drop the pretext and take up painting? Science may not be the only path to truth or knowledge but I do think that other paths are in many ways subservient to science. One can't seriously advance a philosophy that claims that the earth is only 10,000 years old. Although that is the position advanced by the ICR and taught to students at private Christian schools. I for one think inflicting these ideas on children is a form of child abuse. 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/
