Greetings Mary --
[Marsha, previously]:
I understand the only way towards an Ultimate Truth is to discover the
falseness of static patterns(experience): not this, not that. There
is no permanence to static patterns(experience) so in what sense could
they ever be true. Could it be that patterns that last longer are
somehow more true? But that would mean time is the measure of truth,
and time is itself a static pattern of value.
[Mary Replies]:
Yes. We would do well to contemplate the idea that time itself
is a static pattern of value.
Through SOM we arrived at the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle.
This should tell us that there was a "time" when time was meaningless.
All the static patterns built up on top of this idea of time are false.
The foundation upon which these patterns are built is clay.
Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle tells us only that beyond the sensible
range of finitude (i.e., the quanta level) the more precisely the position
of a particle is given, the less precisely can one say what its momentum is.
This principle demonstrates a limitation of experience, rather than
qualifying the "time stream" as such. Actually, Heisenberg himself
discussed the possibility that behind our observational data might be a
hidden reality in which quantum systems have definite values for position
and momentum, unaffected by the uncertainty relations. He dismissed this
conception as meaningless speculation because, as he said, "the aim of
physics is only to describe observable data."
Classical Philosophy has given us the maxim that nothing can come from
nothing. If you believe this, then the space/time world of appearances
ultimately alludes to a fundamental or True Reality. Otherwise, you fall
into the camp which rejects any reality as "true". A system of
interrelating things or "patterns" that depend on each other for their
existence without a primary source describes the paradox of infinite
regression -- a logical fallacy.
I'm not sure about you, Mary, but I fear that Marsha has succumbed to this
nihilistic view. She will try to deny it on the ground that she believes in
'Quality'. But Quality (Value) can only be realized experientially, so it
is no less a "pattern" than is the experiencing subject. And, although
Pirsig could have posited his 'DQ' as the Primary Source, thus providing his
quality thesis with a metaphysical foundation, he chose not to.
I am firmly convinced that an "Absolute Essence" is the primary, underlying
source of all appearances. The Essentialist ontology follows from this
conviction, and it explains "existence" as the affect of a negated
sensibility experiencing reality (otherness) as Being divided by
nothingness. The mode of subjective awareness is dimensional in time and
space; and while objective experience is relative and provisional, the Value
from which it is derived is absolute and unconditional. In a metaphysical
sense, Value, Sensibility, and Truth are One in Essence. Ultimately,
difference and contrariety are transcended by eliminating the nothingness
that separates them.
I realize this is a lot to digest in a posted message. But it has long been
my view that had Mr. Pirsig gone that extra step by making Quality a
relational aspect of Reality, rather than reality itself, he would have
avoided most of the confusion surrounding the MoQ.
Thanks for your indulgence, Mary, and 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
