Nope, the originating source is not there anymore,it left , along with history.
2010/10/27 Ham Priday <[email protected]> > > 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 > -- parser 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
