Hey there, Mark --
Don't worry, it is not possible to criticize the MoQ, all you can
criticize is your understanding of it. Your point on labels is a
good one. Of course these are not the only labels, but they are
just the ones that Pirsig chooses. He makes it clear what he
means by these. A number of labels would do, choose
whichever one you want that has meaning to you. You choose
experiential and ultimate. I understand experiential, but ultimate
is not quite clear. Could you explain that one? Give me an
example of what you consider to be ultimate reality.
You see, this is the problem of metaphysics, which literally means "beyond
the physical". Ultimate reality, like God, Primary Source, the
All-encompassing, the ground of Being, and Dynamic Quality, is undefinable.
Therefore, any "example" I could give you would be a metaphor or analogy for
a thing or event, which ultimate reality is not.
In my online thesis I quote Andrey Smirnov of the Department of Oriental
Philosophy at Russia's Academy of Sciences who explains how the mystics of
Europe and Islam got around the inadequacy of definitions in describing a
divinity or primary cause:
"The mystics understood the indefinableness of God in a far wider sense than
did other medieval philosophers and thinkers. Indefinableness, as the
mystics put it, traverses the limits of the indefinable in the sense of
Aristotelian logic. For anything to be indefinable per genus et
differentiam does not exclude at all the possibility of description, and
description is, of course, stating something definite about the thing
described. But the indefinableness of God in a mystical sense comes in fact
to be indefiniteness; that is, it rules out any definite proposition about
the Divine essence. Any such proposition means a sort of limitation imposed
on the Divine, while the latter is incompatible with any limit. The
ontological unlimitedness of God entails for a mystic an epistemological
indefiniteness: any assertion about God would then be only metaphorical and
would not serve as an established basis of knowledge."
I then show how Nicholas of Cusa [AKA Cusanus, 1401-1464] developed a theory
based on the "not-other" as a symbolic connotation for God. Cusanus argues
that, although God is indefinable, it can be stated that the world is not
God but is not anything other than God. "The first principle cannot be
other either than an other or than nothing and likewise is not opposed to
anything." God is "not other", he asserts, because God is not other than
any [particular] other, even though "not-other" and "other" [once derived]
are opposed. But no other can be opposed to God from whom it is derived.
Cusa's theory has afforded philosophers a most useful metaphysical tool - a
definitive 'handle' for the ineffable Source whose attributive nature is
otherwise indefinable.
'Not other' is what the gnostic Meister Eckhart meant by total 'IS-ness',
and what I infer by the term 'Essence'. For me, Essence is the ultimate
reality because it transcends the world of definable otherness (things and
events) which is our experience of its value. The reality of Essence
affords an answer to Heidegger's question: "Why is there something rather
than nothing?" Essence is the ultimate Source without which nothing exists.
How could this absolute Source not be "ultimate Reality"?
That you find it necessary to ask the question, Mark, indicates to me that
you don't hold to belief in a metaphysical reality. As a biologist, you may
consider the evolving universe to be the only reality there is. With Pirsig
as your mentor, you may be persuaded to accept Qualityism as your ontology,
despite its shortcomings. I doubt that you will turn to religion; but you
may eventually decide to dismiss philosophy altogether and conclude that
everything comes from nothingness, which of course violates Prothagoras's
maxim ''ex nihilo nihil fit". Again, that is your choice as a free agent.
And choices are what the life-experience is all about. We need them to
realize the Value of Reality.
Thanks, Mark. May you arrive at a conclusion you can live with.
Essentially yours,
Ham
As I look again at Pirsig's block diagram (SODV paper), I can almost
envision the author's thought process. Having already decided to call
metaphysical reality "Dynamic Quality", he now had to show how the
experienced patterns related to the dynamic flow. For this he needed an
antonym for "dynamic", such as "stationary" or "fixed". Whether it was its
association with electromotive force or for some other reason, he chose
"static". In the paragraph immediately preceding the diagram he states:
"Dynamic Quality is a stream of quality events going on and on forever,
always at the cutting edge of the present. But in the wake of this cutting
edge are static patterns of value. These are memories, customs, and
patterns
of nature."
[Mark]
As you know, Quality is the expression of things, such as "that has
high quality". Pirsig has chosen to divide these up to help us
understand what he is talking about. He does this begrudgingly but
with intent. If you view dynamic as the present moment, which is also
undefinable, this may help. This is the purpose of Zen as I
understand it. You may be presenting his thought process, I don't
know. But yes, many things are best explained in a Yin Yang kind of
way. This is why Taoism is successful in creating understanding. He
is not necessarily saying that this is the way it is, he is showing a
way in which it can be understood.
The terms stuck because they were effective in identifying the divisions
of
Quality as diagrammed by the author. Unfortunately, they proved less
effective--even confusing--when applied to everyday examples of static
patterns, such as works of art or music, both of which.have dynamic
aspects.
One might just as logically call experienced events "dynamic" and the
Quality from which they are derived "static". But I suspect the label
Dynamic Quality had more romantic appeal to Pirsig's novelist instincts.
[Mark]
Yes, it is obviously confusing. The awareness that Pirsig has cannot
be imparted in a simple manner. When he states something, everybody
seems to be looking at the words he uses, rather than what he is
saying. Typically the best (and some say the only) way to grasp these
things is to have a teacher that one trusts implicitly, a Master if
you will. It is not easy conveying an awareness. I think dynamic is
pretty cool, and imparts meaning to me, I like movement. It coincides
with my awareness, but that is just me.
As an essentialist, of course, I see the terminology as a fundamental
misconception of metaphysical reality. The problem I have with "Dynamic
Quality" is that it is "unfinished" -- that it continues indefinitely
along
some cosmic path to "betterness" which we associate with evolution. And it
straps Quality to the space/time dimensions of a universe in process. I
think this is what Mark was getting at when he suggested that Evolution
shouldn't be used to connote Quality.
[Mark]
This is similar to the concept of infinity. This seems to trouble
many people. For example, if an infinite amount of time had to elapse
before we are here, then how is it possible that we are here? In
terms of evolution, my understanding of such a concept has nothing to
do with what Quality is. This is obviously not a problem for others,
which is fine. I am told that I am wrong to see it this way, but such
is the intrusion of dogma into MoQ. Words, words, words.
Beginnings and endings are a phenomenon of the "cause-and-effect" world
where meaning is found in the existential (alpha to omega) progression
between these two boundaries. But there is no metaphysical reason to
assume
that the modus operandi of the ultimate source is process in time. The
spiritual cultures that predated philosophy must have understood this, as
religious people have traditionally characterized their God as "eternal"
and
"unchanging'.
[Mark]
Yes, and as you know, the mystic often describes such an experience as
being outside of time. Living completely in the present is also
outside of time. Unfortunately, the world wouldn't work to well (or
at least as it does), if everybody did this. This is only for those
who find it meaningful. Often I too have difficulty with Pirsig's
linearity and positive direction. Often he uses it to justify his
social and intellectual beliefs. But such digressions do not take
away from the heart of what he is saying. Often I find that people
with completely different politics than I have still have something to
say that is profound. When one tries to use MoQ to directly explain
the way things are in a subject object oriented world, there are bound
to be miscommunications, overlaid with personal opinions. Such
examples are really trivial to the message.
But if you are persuaded that ultimate Quality streams to betterness in
its
creation of lingering patterns, who am I to fault this belief? Inasmuch
as
the principles of metaphysics are incapable of empirical verification, one
analogy will be regarded as good as another.
[Mark]
In my opinion, an analogy is good if it works for you. Ultimately,
they are all the same thing, that is the brain entertaining itself and
creating things. This is what is wonderful. We are free to do such a
thing.
Thanks Ham,
I always find you to be a voice of reason.
Cheers,
Mark
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
