Hi Ham, > Well, then, let me try to sell it to you. ... > > The transitional world we live in is differentiated into solids, liquids and > gases; animals, vegetables and minerals; and a multiplicity of objects, all > of which can be defined and described. We call this our "reality" and Mr. > Pirsig calls it a "subject-object metaphysics". If you call SOM reality I know of a better explanation of reality called The MOQ.
Existence is much more than the objects you have described above. It also is composed of things such as societies and ideas which are in fact more real than any object described above. > But, to borrow from Hegel, > it's really a world of "appearances". Underlying these appearances is a > fundamental Reality that is uncreated, undifferentiated, and unchanging. Such fixed rigidity to me sounds very depressing. If there is something ultimate it is open because anything closed is not open to become better. The power in the MOQ is that it is open to be replaced by something better. How do you not like that Ham? I'll bet you want something better. > Those who do not acknowledge fundamental Reality consider it "nothingness". I disagree. Considering something nothingness is acknowledging it. > Those who view it as the cause of experiential reality are either > pantheists, subjectivists, or mystics. I would put Pirsig in this category. > He defines everything--including the conscious self--as a "pattern of > quality", but because he can't define the fundamental source of this > quality, he names it Dynamic Quality. By patternizing the experiential > world the MoQ does away with subjects and objects, but not the space/time > dimensionality of the physical universe. > > Why not simply call the two modes of reality "defined" and "undefined"? > > You quote the author as saying "the term dynamic in 'Dynamic Quality' can be > confused with 'movement' but that is not what Dynamic Quality is. Dynamic > Quality isn't anything at all, including movement." I understand that > Dynamic Quality isn't an entity or "thing" in the experiential sense. > However, the word dynamic relates to "dynamics" which is an active process, > or (as Webster's Dictionary states), "marked by continuous, usually > productive activity or change." Thus, I submit that Pirsig positied his > "fundamental Quality" as Dynamic to allow for its supposed evolution to > "betterness". I agree that without change nothing can get better and this is why Pirsig likely chose the term, but this change is not always Dynamic Quality. Sometimes things can change for the worse. Dynamic Quality is not change. > But why must the fundamental Reality be a "process"? Religion didn't > conceive God as a process, nor did the theologists of Greek philosophy. If > the nature of the Creator is Oneness, it logically transcends all > conditional attributes, including movement and change. You are once again conflating Dynamic Quality with change. They are not the same thing as I've said above. > This is why I subscribe to the ontogeny of an "undefined absolute". I have > named it 'Essence' because it is "essential" for anything to be, and because > Essence means "the permanent as contrasted with the accidental element of > being - the real or ultimate nature of a thing as opposed to its existence." Anything in the MOQ which could be described as 'essense' is quality. However fundamentally quality cannot be defined. This is the power of the MOQ, it leaves it open to be replaced by something better. > Cusa posited 'not-other' as the coincidence of all otherness, including > nothingness and contrariety. You cannot negate nothingness. If you are negating nothingness then you are treating it as something which it is not. > He reasoned that if actuality did not exist, > then nothing could actually be. But "things appear"; therefore actuality > exists. Possibility and actuality are co-dependent in existence but > coincide in the non-contradictory Source -ultimate reality in which > opposites like 'positive/negative' and 'being/nothing' are equivalent. If > the possibility of contradictory otherness is always present in Essence and > becomes actualized when there is an awareness to experience it, then it is > this actualization that we call existence. > > How does the aesthetic property called Quality, whether static or dynamic, > create existence? Or does Mr. Pirsig consider ontogeny inexplicable? Quality is not just aesthetics. In the MOQ all static quality arises from Dynamic Quality. Far from inexplicable, if something is created it is good because good is fundamental. Good is a noun. That is what the MOQ says. What do you think 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
