Hi Ham, Bet you knew I would reply as your old nemesis. Thanks for trying to harmonize, it is the same thing that I attempt. I will provide some input into your topic and try to stay rational.
On Sat, May 14, 2011 at 1:43 PM, Ham Priday <[email protected]> wrote: > Greetings All -- > > > Marsha has been truckin' and duckin', leaving a long trail of thoughts and > definitions to ponder. Most of it recaps her own interpretations of static > and dynamic Quality for which she seeks affirmation or further refinement.. [Mark] No comment here. > > I'd like to try something different by way of approaching the philosophy of > Essence which I hope will be seen as relevant to the MoQ. For the sake of > clarity, I'm going to disregard the Pirsigian vernacular of SOM, Dynamic, > Static, and Betterness, as well as the levels hierarchy that has confounded > the newcomers and fueled the old guard. Bear with me as I focus on what I > consider to be fundamental to a valuistic philosophy. [Mark] Good start, let's not get into all of that. > > Quality is a common label that we apply to objects, merchandise, and > experiences that we sense as virtuous, good, or worthy in some way. Pirsig's > philosophy is, at its core, a cosmology of Goodness. But it also points to > something else -- the "motivational power" of Value that transcends > experience. How can motivation extend beyond human experience? This, I > submit, is the question the MoQ fails to address. [Mark] This is one way to describe Quality. If you think about it, all we can sense is the quality of something. That is, how it is expressed. We have no notion of the actual thing itself, only its interaction with us. In this way, Quality is at the interface of us and something else. In terms of your second point. I have made clear that such motivation extends way beyond human experience, and what we sense is the "humanized" variety of such motivation. Such motivation is held at all levels, just look at the behavior of a gas introduced into a vacuum. Motivation is, as you say, a component of MoQ. It is a driving force of Quality. I will leave it at that for now and await some comments. > > Mr. Pirsig has told us that Quality (Value) is not an attribute of either > things or the apprehending self. It exists in its own threshold, > independently of the patterns that constitute the universe and the beings > that experience it. He claims it is indefinable, yet insists it is the > moral ground of reality. How does he know that the universe is a "moral > system"? What evidence does he provide that its evolution progresses to > betterness? And what is the final result or goal of this process? Indeed, > it is ever attained? [Mark] I am not sure of this rendition of Quality since Quality can be subdivided. Qualities are expressed by all, that is how we know it is there. But I have agreed to leave that part of MoQ out. Quality is part of the patterns, not separate. It is what creates experience. Again, think about it, all we experience are qualities. The world can be viewed as a moral system since it is a driving force within us humans. We are expressing the human equivalent of Morality. It is, as stated, not only a human value. Again, I will say that we cannot get something from nothing. We cannot make morality up. We can certainly experience its force, which is what we do. The notion of "betterness" becomes highly teleological. This is also a problem with defining evolution through "that which survives". So, such a notion of betterness can be said to arise out of our personal relationship with the universe. This betterness is part of our make-up in our daily actions. We can therefore postulate that it is something that exists. > > Let's assume that there is a "perfect entity" which we can only know as > differentiated otherness. (That assumption isn't difficult to make, for we > surely didn't spring from nothingness, and arbitrarily compartmentalizing > Perfection is a violation of Occam's Razor.) Like Plato's cave people, we > see moving shadows that come and go. We know this shadow-world must > represent something "real", but we can't discern what that reality is. > Instead we measure the shadows, observe their behavior, give them proper > names, study their dynamics and theorize their causes. Through it all, we > yearn for the essence of their being. In short, we want the essence of > being for ourselves. [Mark] Yes, Quality is a perfect entity, expressed perfectly in the moment. But I am fine with your otherness as well, since it can be reduced to the same thing. The moment cannot be sub-divided, therefore Occam's Razor does not apply. The shadows which we see are cast by Quality. Yes, as with Buddhist thought, we sense an incompleteness in what we experience (also mistakenly termed "suffering"). We want to experience Quality as ourselves, which is what is achieved through disciplinary mindfulness and Yoga. Many people have done this, and do not just dream about it. Therefore, such yearning can come to an end once it is achieved. This is what Zen is all about; uniting with your essence, and not having to be dead to do it. > > That wanting -- that desire to fulfill ourselves, that aspiration to be one > with the essential otherness -- is the driving force of mankind. It is what > I call Value. It exists because we are NOT the other; we are, in fact, > denied direct access to essential otherness. As value-sensible beings, we > can only represent it, experientially, as differentiated desiderata. [Mark] I would not speak of all mankind in this way, but you are correct that some seek such fulfillment. Yes, we represent Quality in its human form. In this way, we are Quality. Differentiation is not the norm in our daily lives. Only a small part of our experience is subject to differentiation. This conversation being one of those. Your heart is one with the universe. > > Difference, then, is the modus operandi of Creation. Were it not for the > difference by which we come into existence, Value would not be realized. And > the "primary difference" which separates us from otherness accounts for all > the qualitative, aesthetic, moral, and intellectual judgments we make about > our existential reality. From these valuations we give meaning to all > created things, including life itself. [Mark] Difference is the MO of Quality. That is why it is called that. It provides Qualities. We are not separated from it in my opinion except perhaps consciously. Instead we are in tune with the whole. Part of the harmony. Meaning is provided to us, we cannot create such things. Nothing from Nothing. > > On the other side of sensible value lies the uncreated, unmoved and Absolute > Source of this individually cognized world of appearances. Value > realization is "essential" in two ways: It is a sensible derivation of the > Source; and it is our inextricable connection with the Source. Therefore, > it follows that whatever future awaits us when we have departed this life is > "valuistic" in nature. [Mark] Well, you know I don't see this, but I am willing to try to harmonize it. The world of appearances is what Quality provides, again, that is why it is named as such. Certainly what awaits us is valuistic, in the same way as what proceeded us. If it wasn't we wouldn't be here right now. What Value! Depending on what we do, we cycle back, since nothing can be created or destroyed, including our "I". Simple physics. > > I offer this overview of the essential cosmology for you to re-interpret or > expand Pirsig's Quality thesis as you see fit. I understand that some here > feel that Value, rather than nothingness, is the differentiator of > existence, while others view existence as an S/O illusion created by Quality > patterns. But however we theorize physical reality, it seems to me that > Value is too significant in our lives to be taken for granted, and that any > value-based philosophy must posit a transcendent Source from which Value is > derived. [Mark] Agreed, we should not take Quality for granted. Often it takes a near death experience to realize this. Thanks for the topic, All the best, 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
