Hy, David --
[Ham said]:
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".
[David replies]:
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.
Societies are collections of individuals which can be classifed as animal
entities. Ideas are not entities (existents); they are "mind patterns"
which don't exist in the objective sense.
[Ham continues]:
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.
[David]:
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.
My existentially wanting something better does not alter fundamental
Reality. You assume that Quality is forever bettering itself, which implies
that it never achieves the 'summum bonum' it seeks. That means Quality is
always of a lower grade than it is purported to be -- hardly an ideal
situation for the fundamental Source, wouldn't you agree? Since the Reality
I have posited is not existential but Essential, it is not subject to the
evolutionary changes of finitude. That sounds "rigid" and "depressing" to
you, because you are not the Essential Source but an experiential entity
looking at it from the outside.
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"?
You are once again conflating Dynamic Quality with change.
They are not the same thing as I've said above.
Anything in the MOQ which could be described as 'essence' 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.
I can define Essence as "the absolute uncreated source of all that is." Why
can't you define Quality?
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?
I think whatever needs "to be replaced by something better" is not good
enough to be the Absolute 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
