Ham, The MoQ is a radically different way of understanding the universe. I have found my definition of static patterns of value helpful to me. I do realize they are words and not the experience, but they also match my experience.
Marsha On May 14, 2011, at 4:43 PM, Ham Priday 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.. > > 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. > > 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. > > 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? > > 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. > > 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. > > 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. > > 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. > > 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. > > 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 ___ 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
