Hey, Bo --
10 June you butted into my debate with the Krimel (most welcome) but please do not carry it into the wilderness so i cut it down to my obsessive issue.
Well, you have just deflated most of my enthusiasm regarding your willingness to discuss metaphysical fundamentals ;-[.
[Bodvar before]:
Well what did Lao Tsu mean by TAO if not the source from which everything emanates or are "carvings" out of?
[Ham]:
That's music to my ears, coming from you, Bo. I'm especially in tune with "the source from which everything emanates." It's decidedly Platonistic.
[Bodvar]:
Nonsense dear Ham. Plato's message was that IDEAS are the TRUE (what became objective) part (of the Truth/ Appearance dualism that Greek Thought had arrived at with Socrates) while SENSES represented mere Appearances. Nothing faintly similar to Ideas being dynamic and Senses being static. Now then if you too will concentrate. We agree on a Dynamic source from which everything emanates.
Frankly, I'm not keen on the Static/Dynamic paradigm, nor do I believe that "dynamics" have any relevance to the primary source. The dichotomy of Essentialism is between Absolute and Relational. This translates ontologically to Essence/Existence, and epistemologically to Sensibility/Beingness. I also believe Absolute suggests "uncreated" and "immutable" (i.e., static?), whereas Relational suggests "temporal", "differentiated", and "changing" (i.e., dynamic?). That effectively reverses your static/dynamic paradigm. So, if you expect me to follow your conception, my contributions will overlook those terms.
Lao Tsu calls it TAO and you may call it ESSENCE, but as the MOQ is the focus here let's concentrate on QUALITY. The MOQ postulates that static levels have formed from/in this dynamic Quality. So the enigma is why Pirsig went and said that the MOQ is just the static part of a still greater QUALITY/MOQ meta-metaphysics. [SNIP]
This is outrageous: The MOQ postulates a DQ as dynamic as dynamic comes, why a still greater DQ???? After having written this (Summary) and committed this super-metaphysics to "words" one would think a still more dynamic variety were required ... OK, I keep repeating myself.
Judging from your Pirsig quote, I'm guessing it was his 'caveat' to the reader that any analysis of Quality--such as time/space creation--will necessarily be an empirical ("static") exposition, and not that ultimate reality or DQ itself is static.
Look, Bo. Deists call their God a "Supreme Being" without the slightest knowledge of what "supreme" means in the context of beingness. Pirsig is doing the same thing with "Quality". The only way we can know it is empirically, parsed into levels and patterned into objects and events. Obviously, this differentiated perspective isn't what Quality is in the absolute sense. (Of course, I don't happen to believe in "Absolute Quality", my understanding of quality being that it's the human assessment of experience--a relative psycho-emotional "pattern").
I don't think Pirsig ever really wanted to ponder the metaphysical truth of a primary source. His books demonstrate a greater interest in anthropology and the development of social cultures. Absolute Quality or Essence was meaningless to him. His legacy as a philosopher/novelist would have received more acclaim had he made no mention of metaphysics at all and titled his thesis simply "The World of Quality".
That's only my opinion, of course. As for engaging in discussions aimed at "re-interpreting the MOQ", my own valuistic philosophy is so far off Pirsig's chart on the fundamentals I'm afraid I can't be of much help. However, if it's alright with you, I'll continue to chime in once in awhile when I feel the need to emphasize a point or when my instincts tell me someone is talking nonsense.
Thanks for the invitation, though, Bo. 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/md/archives.html
