Ham to dmb:
Yes, I'm quite aware of the Quality thesis, Dave.
Andre (butting in):
'Aware' yes, Ham, but 'comprehending' no. You have shown this much ...over the
years.
Ham:
I just don't accept it as logical...
Andre:
No you don't. But who says that Pirsig's MOQ is logical? Certainly not
according to your criteria. I liken your use of the word 'logical'(denoting a
procedure to be followed)to attempting to describe reality as mechanisms,
systems, programs... anything structured, no matter how complex. Hence your
need for a soundly reasoned, rational epistemological foundation pointing
towards some 'finality', some 'source', some 'Absolute' (claiming of course
your 'Essence' to fulfilling such a role).
Problem is, this is not the MOQ. The MOQ shows how values create these
programs, systems, mechanisms out of which a sense of static, conventional
reality is created. And it also shows that Dynamic Quality, the driving force,
life, consciousness, call it what you like, is heading away from these
structured patterns.
Dynamic Quality is not structured and yet it is not chaotic. It is value that
cannot be contained by static patterns. (LILA, p146)
Ham:
The adage that "everything gets known by some knower" has a poetic ring to it
that makes us feel good, but it's without epistemological foundation.
Andre:
This is exactly what Pirsig means. You say: '[it] makes us feel good'
(which is a statement about value) but dismiss it before you are even
finished... .
'See how this works? A thing doesn't exist because we have never
observed it. The reason we have never observed it is because we have
never looked for it. And the reason we have never looked for it is that
it is unimportant, it has no value and we have better things to
do'.(ibid, p 147).
You Ham, recognize it and dismiss it on epistemological grounds because
it don't fit inside your 'logical' system. This leads me to conclude
that, after all these years you do not comprehend Pirsig's MOQ, still
blinded by your subject-object essence.
Ham:
I agree that Value (Quality) plays a significant noetic role in ontology; but
it is derived
from Essence rather than the cosmos. And without realization by a "sensible"
agent, it is meaningless.
Andre:
Here you go, the separation of subject (sensible agent)from object('from
Essence'). The MOQ is a program that adheres to radical empiricism.It is above
all a program about values ordered within an evolutionary framework. Dmb has
used this observation a few times but I will use it again:
As Charlene Seigfried, an eminent James scholar, says: 'What is' (metaphysics)
cannot be designated
apart from how we know it (epistemology). Neither can it be grasped apart from what we value'. The traditional distinctions between ontology, epistemology and ethics breaks down so that knowledge and will, facts and values are fused and this is how the MOQ unites facts and values.
As you say above, you simply reject Pirsig's MOQ thesis and that is why I am
still wondering what you are doing here Ham. I mean this respectfully.
Look carefully at the sentence you wrote above:'And without realization by a
'sensible agents, it is meaningless'. Think about it in the light of what I
wrote, specifically the word 'realization'. For something to be 'realized' it
must have value, otherwise one will not realize it. No matter how 'sensible'
your agent is. This is what Pirsig's MOQ is made up of.
Kind regards.
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
