Ham, I see it the other way around, values presuppose purpose, intention, and consciousness, a mind, a Creator.
And when it comes down to it, is seems that moq gives to quality many of the basic, at least primary attributes of divinity. Q is said to be self-existent, the creator. The cause of all that is that has no cause. Q is claimed to be the great I AM. As God spoke to Moses, I AM that which IS, the Great first cause of all which can't be named-the self-existent one. Jon On Sat, Apr 24, 2010 at 3:48 AM, Ham Priday <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 > 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
