Greetings, Platt --
Your clear and concise explanation of the major MoQ principles is a
significant accomplishment. Although the finer points of your
interpretation undoubtedly will be challenged by the academicians here, from
what I've read of Pirsig's thesis your description of the fundamentals is
consistent with the spirit and ontology of the author's philosophy.
Not to criticize this synopsis, but by way of alerting you to some
weaknesses in the thesis that are reflected in your outline, I'd like to
comment briefly on what I see as problematic assertions. These will come as
no surprise to you, knowing the differences in my ontological perspective.
But I think they underscore points of controversy that may confound
newcomers like Jon and are almost certain to elicit critical responses from
the elders of this forum.
Principles of the Metaphysics of Quality
The Quality Principle. Quality is simultaneously an immanent and
transcendent moral force. It created and gave purpose to our world,
motivated by the ethical principle of the "Good" which is its essence.
Quality is synonymous with "morality" and "value." Thus, the world
is primarily a moral order, consisting not of subjects (mental things)
and objects (material things) but patterns of value.
Because it is posited as Reality itself, Quality defined as a "principle" is
a form of casuistry. It forces you to accept Quality as both the Creator
and the "created", as the essence of goodness and the "moral order" that
ensues. This leads to two questions: If the "Good" is the essence, what is
the need for a principle to "motivate" it? Also, your phrase "primarily a
moral order" seems equivocal. If moral goodness is primary, why is the
world (of value patterns) not ABSOLUTELY good?
The Awareness Principle. The essence of quality is known to us as
awareness without content - pure, unpatterned experience. As such,
it's impossible to describe. Whenever we try, we end up describing
what we are aware of, not awareness itself.
Epistemologically we cannot "know" something without content, and experience
(the world of appearances) is the content of awareness. Thus, not only is
the essence of quality "impossible to describe", it is impossible to be
aware of.
The Dynamic/Static Principle. To explain the inexplicable, the Metaphysics
of Quality divides quality into two parts, Dynamic and Static. Dynamic
Quality is the moral imperative to create; Static Quality is the moral
imperative
to survive.
This distinction, and the conclusions you have drawn, appear to be
arbitrary. The need to survive is instinctual, rather than a "moral
imperative", as is the need to procreate. I don't see any substantiation
for an "imperative to create", nor (except for Pirsig's special concept of
"morality") is either survival or creation generally regarded as a moral
issue. Also, since the act or exercise of creation and doing what is
necessary to survive are both processes in time, I don't know how Pirsig
justifies the premise that survival is a static principle.
The Levels Principle. Quality became manifest in our world by an
evolutionary sequence of Dynamic Quality Events. Left in the wake of
these events were four static levels of evolution - inorganic, biological,
social and intellectual. Each level is a static pattern of Quality,
organized
and governed by its own unique moral laws - the laws of physics, biology,
culture and reason respectively.
This, of course, assumes that the creation of existence ("our world") is a
series of historical events in time, and that the categories cited were
differentiated or defined prior to the arrival of a conscious agent to
distinguish them. Inasmuch as the four levels are processes (i.e.,
"actions") of evolution -- how could they not be? -- what is it that makes
them "static" as opposed to evolution which only names the overall process?
I'll skip the Hierarchy and Dominance Principles because they are unique to
the MoQ and require a doctrinal acceptance of Pirsig's theories as
"authoritative. As a personal note, I believe in the dependency of all life
forms on Nature and "being" (otherness), but I don't view it as a struggle
for dominance by superior or inferior levels. Likewise, while Truth may be
an "intellectual pattern", there is no basis for calling it "a species of
Good." Pragmatists, for example, would regard "what works" as a principle
of Truth; the only "goodness" about it being that it solves a problem for
which a solution was wanted.
For Quality to "strive for freedom from static patterns" strikes me as
contradictory, since Quality is described as creating those patterns, and
would therefore have primary control over them. Regarding the Individual
Principle, you say, "responses to and evaluations of Quality vary by
individual because each has a different static pattern of life history."
True, but isn't this another way of saying that existence (i.e., the
life-experience) is unique for each individual?
I especially like the way you developed the Proof Principle. It establishes
two concepts which are not apparent in the other principles. "People" are
the "deniers" and "affirmers" of morality and value. (For me this bears out
Protagoras' axiom, 'Man is the measure of all things'.) And, life's purpose
is ultimately derived from the values we choose.
The Proof Principle. That reality is morality strikes most people as
loony.
But in denying that the world is a moral order they have to employ moral
judgment. They cannot refute that Quality is reality without asserting a
value.
And they will have to concede that it´s impossible to live without
assumptions
of what is Good. For life requires action, action presupposes choice,
choice
presupposes purpose and purpose presupposes values.
Fine work, as always, Platt. It will be interesting to see which principles
are contested by the other participants.
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/md/archives.html
