Hi Mark --
On Feb 11, 2010, at 2:38:06 PM, "Ham Priday" wrote:
The problem with Pirsig's philosophy is that reality is assumed
to be a divided system from the beginning. There is no creator,
no design, no purpose. There is only Quality. Apart from the
fact that Quality (Value) is a human measurement, nothing
comes from nothingness, let alone a divided system.
There must be a primary cause or source for anything to be.
This is not a concept of mythology or religion, it's the
logic of reason.
Why do you say it is a divided system? How does this work 4u?
I used the word "divided" in this reply to Bodvar because on Feb 8 he said
"I don't see much meaning in ultimate anything which is then divided."
Generally I use "differentiated" as a descriptive term for pluralistic
(experiential) reality, reserving "division" for the primary
Sensibility/Otherness dichotomy. In an empirical sense, every existent
(being) is differentiated from every other. What the value-sensible subject
perceives is a "reality of otherness", whereas Absolute Reality is
"not-other". I don't expect Bo to accept this concept, but it does account
for an "ultimate [source] which is then divided".
Quality is Essence, our negation of Quality provides us with a
means to identify individual and separate degrees of Quality.
It is because we negate Quality that we are able to experience
it. A drawing is experienced through its negation of a white piece
of paper. However, the drawing cannot exist without that piece
of paper.
I like your ontogeny, although I think the "negation" function is
misinterpreted. That is, we don't negate Quality (Value), we negate the
object that our value-sensibility represents. Experience separates or
extracts the object from otherness, and we intellectualize it as a
particular being (for ourself). You might want to review Martin Heidegger's
cosmology of "Being-in-the-world" ('dasein', in German) which spells this
out in great detail. Heidegger called this secondary negation "nihilation",
theorizing that "The nothing itself nihilates. ... it discloses these beings
in their full and heretofore concealed strangeness as what is radically
other - with respect to the other."
In terms of a primary cause or source for everything,
I am not sure if that is necessary. You are asking what makes
it up? Why can it not just be?
What you are really asking is: "Why philosophize?" 'Ex nihilo nihil fit',
the metaphysical maxim attributed to Empedocles, predates the MoQ by 2500
years. Whether we acknowledge it or not, nothing can "just be". A primary
source is essential. I quote from your post of 2/7: "There is a reality
outside of experience, there has to be else wise we are just negating
nothingness in a vacuum." Essence is what I call the ultimate reality that
transcends experience.
Thanks for your insights and understanding, Mark.
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/
