Hi Adrie [Joe Maurer quoted] --
Ham, superb post. I agree on all of it, Pirsig, Huxley and
strangely but true also your conclusions and abstractions.
Problem is this: I can think of it all in my language and in
this context, but I want to type it and the words just
don't come.
I agree, especially on Pirsig's Huxley insight.
And I furthermore strongly agree on your statement not to
pursue to an endless level the DQ/SQ/truth/value train.
Because of a reason, of course, not to become niche products
in our own niche, trying to explain the working principles of
a color to a mouse, or the layout of a computer to a bacterium,
but missing the point entirely that, by adding properties,
the original intrinsic properties are, in fact, downscaled
to a lesser property.
This is where Pirsig Broke free, not allowing to define boundaries for
Quality,
desintegrating Quality by adding properties.
MoQ! without definitions.
Thank you for the kind words, Adrie. And please excuse me for editing them
slightly. Mice and bacteria being taught principles they are incapable of
understanding is a perfect analogy for man confronting an absolute source.
You're right that we can't put into words what we don't experience. But it
is possible to express an 'intuited' conception by means of analogy,
metaphor, or even logic. This is what I have tried to do with my
metaphysical ontogeny. It's difficult because people tend to react
negatively toward certain terms and principles for reasons that have more to
do with personal bias than with logic. Here's an example from a response
posted just after yours:
[Joe]:
Are you equating DQ with a divine reality? I don't think that is
a correct understanding of what Pirsig meant by DQ. I use DQ
as an affirmation that there is a lot I don't know.
Logic is a strange tool. "The Absolute Source" sounds like a
contradiction, since "Source" indicates "a beginning," and
"Absolute" is without restriction.
It is difficult for me to see the logic in a negation "not-other"
becoming absolute Essence? If negation is eliminated, it seems
that affirmation is also eliminated, and imagination is not
a trustworthy source.
"Divine reality" was Huxley's term, not mine; but Joe understands it only in
a religious context which surely could not be "what Pirsig meant by DQ."
But if we're searching for Truth, what difference does it make if the analog
stems from religion, philosophy, or science?
Joe also thinks Absolute Source is a contradiction because "Source indicates
a beginning." That may be true in SOM terminology, as in the originating
point of a stream. But "source" is derived from the French word 'sourdre'
which connotes "surge" (to spring forth) rather than beginning. Absolute
does mean "without restriction", and this is why the negation principle is
necessary to explain the ontogeny of Essence. Existence (otherness) is not
an "add-on" to the Absolute; it is a negation or reduction of absolute
sensibility.
His last objection is simply a misunderstanding of my ontology. "Not-other"
does not "become absolute". Instead, what is negated by Essence is affirmed
by the realization of value. This is what we, as value-sensible agents, do
with each successive experience in life. The "process" of existence comes
full circle at the completion of the individual's life cycle, and with it
comes the end of change and contrariety.
These are only speculations on my part, of course, but they seem to make
sense of the empirical fact that life is an individual experience, despite
the need for a primary source to support it.
Welcome to the forum, Adrie. I can see that your perceptive comments are
already sparking new ideas which can only increase interest in these
discussions.
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
