On Oct. 26 at 10:30 AM, Andre asked Alex:
Can you tell me /A what lies 'outside' the MOQ? What do you mean
when you and Ham 'consider the MOQ in a wider context'? What 'reality' are
you referring to that lies outside of experience? Is there something you
are referring to that lies outside of cosmological
evolution? If so, I am very interested to hear.
Even "cosmological evolution" is subject to the ex nililo principle, Andre.
It doesn't arise from nothing.
Prsig has presented us with an ontology of Quality grounded in experience.
The MoQ is a paradigm for the experiential world of existence, not
metaphysical reality. Even though it doesn't acknowledge subjects and
objects as anything but "patterns of Quality", the existence of Quality (or
Value) itself requires the realization of an observer. And that presupposes
a primary source that transcends both objective otherness and
value-sensibility.
Have you achieved a way of arriving at 'concepts' without experience? Have
you arrived at concepts that have no value? Do you have any examples
you'd like to share with us?
Metaphysical concepts are "intuitive" inights formulated logically, hence do
not require experience or empirical knowledge. If a concept has no value it
is not worth positing. A cosmology that neglects the source of value is
incomplete, in my opinion. Essentialism posits Absolute Essence as the
metaphysical source of all value. But neither Value nor the Sensibility
which realizes it is differentiated in Essence.
It seems to me that when you say 'MOQ just considers experience', with
your use of the term 'just' you are wiping out Pirsig's intention and
achievement and completely misunderstand the MOQ. I really wonder
what you are looking for here on this discuss.
When Pirsig says "experience is the cutting edge of reality" and DQ is its
source, he is effectively limiting his thesis to experiential (i.e.,
existential) reality. Adding the terms "static" and "dynamic" to acommodate
"patterns" and "levels", respectively, is an artificial construct intended
to replace a transcendent creator or source. But there is no logical or
metaphysical justification for this terminology, nor does it produce two
kinds of Quality. An absolute source avoids the need for such conceptual
bifurcation. All value is realized relationally (existentially); but its
ultimate source is the Oneness of Essence.
Until you see the value of an absolute ontology, you are stuck with
empirical formulations that apply only to the relations and dynamics of
finite phenomena. In other words, you remain an objectivist in a world of
appearances that has no originating source.
Essentially speaking,
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
