Hi Ham, Thanks for the post. Perhaps I should read through your online thesis again, I have learned a few things from you in the meantime. More below.
On Sat, Apr 2, 2011 at 11:36 AM, Ham Priday <[email protected]> wrote: > > 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. [Mark] Yes, I understand this. Words are inadequate even in describing a tree. The oversimplification of ones awareness of a tree (for example) diminishes such a thing into some kind of decrepit dried out dead spider. So instead of presenting what we see as a tree, we provide a bunch of dried up limbs and expect others to understand. > > 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"? [Mark] I do understand your concept of Essence. What I have always had trouble with (and I think you know this) is the principle of negation. Sure, God is everything, it has to be otherwise it is not God. No man with a big white beard for me, thank you very much (except at Xmas time of course). > > 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. [Mark] My question was intended to get more information about what you see. It was not a deep question that presented my inner psyche by any means. I am a biologist, but I do not believe in an evolving universe as it is currently presented. What becomes Qualityism if you want, is my personal relationship with the cosmos. It is not some words on a piece of paper. If I have shortocomings with my realtionship with reality, then it certainly does not come from what Pirsig writes. He is not that powerful, and certainly not my mentor. I will certainly not turn to religion. I have faith in spirituality, I find religion to be for those who want to follow the leader. The kind that find comfort in numbers, or want an easy way out of all the mistakes they think they have made. This is of course just my personal opinion, and has nothing to do with you being religious, of course. I wouldn't get too enamoured with something that Pythagora's is said to have said. Once you restrict yourself that way, you diminish your creativity. You will find, that our intellectual constructs actually do come from nothing. If not, where do they come from? Can you point to their origins? Can you state where it is that your sense of self comes from? You can create words for such a thing, but that is not the same thing. Don't get too caught up in words, they are trivial in the end as Augustine said, "like straw". Where does Essence "come from", oh, I forgot, it just "is". Well, I guess it is your one allowed exception, but everything else must "come from" something? My bad. > > Thanks, Mark. May you arrive at a conclusion you can live with. [Mark] As Yosarian said in Catch 22, "I am going to live forever, or die in the attempt" > Cheers, Mark > > >> 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 > 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
