On Sun, July 01, 2012 7:35 AM, "Andre Broersen" <[email protected]> wrote:
> Ron (previously) to Andre:
>>
>> That's a great philosophical question Andre, "how do you
>> know unity, oneness, whole?" you said we know them statically, which
>> feels like the right direction. Quality then is the primary explanatory
>> factor in our philosophical theories? and in this way
>> we can say that Quality is one because it is the basis and
>> beginning? on which all explanation extends.
>> But That is probably the only way I'd say that Quality is "one".
>> ?
>
> Andre:
> I think that's right Ron. In Pirsig's words the MoQ is a high-quality
> static intellectual pattern of value because of it's economy of
> statement, explanatory power (where there wasn't before) and the
> harmony it produces. Dq/sq is as you suggest 'the basis and beginning on
> which all explanation extends' and I would add depends. I tend to see this
> in the context of Pirsig echoing Abraham Maslow on the AHP tapes when he
> says that we need something bigger than ourselves ( I think in response to
> and reaction against scientism, positivism, populism and churchy stuff).
>
> In this same context I prefer to change the notion of man being the
> measure of all things into DQ/sq is the measure of all things. An evolving
> wherein 'Man' is a participant. Like William James insisting that 'the
> human being is continuous with Something More'.
>
> Not sure if this makes sense.
Ant McWatt comments:
I'm not too sure Andre. If was to rewrite "Man is the measure of all things"
in MOQ Terms, I'd say "Human beings are the measure of all static patterns".
It's not as catchy as the original though!
Ham Priday stated July 1st 2012:
Well, for what it's worth, I am sure it doesn't make sense. And I'll tell
you why.
Pythagoras was right. Man IS the measure of all things.
Ant McWatt comments:
Ham, it was Protagoras who coined the phrase "Man is the measure of all
things". (Pythagoras was
was the man who discovered the
famous geometrical theorem for right triangles).
Ham Priday continued:
This is what he is biologically and psychically equipped for
Ant McWatt comments:
And not forgetting - also - socially and, if s/he's fortunate enough,
artistically.
Ham Priday continued:
...and what his entire life-experience is about. Indeed, the unique ability to
experience
valuistically
Ant McWatt comments:
All things "experience valuistically" not just human beings though human beings
are unique (discounting sentinent aliens) in that they have intellectual
patterns that enable them to state why some experiences are better than
others.
Ham Priday continued:
...and distinguish what is virtuous, moral, worthy, useful, and
desirable from what is not describes man's role in existence as well or
better than any religious credo or philosophical maxim I know. Without this
discriminative measuring ability, there would be no reason or meaning for
human existence.
This is what concerns me about positing Quality (Value) as an external
existent which independently guides or controls man's preferences, thereby
denying him free choice.
Ant McWatt comments:
In the MOQ, you are completely free to follow Dynamic Quality or not.
Moreover, regarding free-will, the MOQ has a more spohisticated framework to
deal with the issue because of its four static levels (in addition to the
Dynamic).
As far as following inorganic patterns, that's nearly deterministic. There's
not much that you can do to defy the laws of physics (other than update them).
Biological patterns can be changed to some extent. For example, through
exercise, diet or surgery.
Social patterns even more so. Diogenes was doing that at Plato's time.
However, I don't think Diogenes (with his anti-social behaviour) would have
been a popular guy with the ladies.
Particular intellectual patterns can be chosen freely - for all practical
purposes - by their quality. I guess this is where the MOQ's pragmatic
heritage kicks in.
Ham Priday continued:
The idea has led to the absurd notion of a robotic
man swept toward some utopian betterness in the flow of evolving Quality.
It is inconceivable to me that the cosmic plan would "evolve" a creature
with such exquisite sensibility unless this faculty were intended to be
nurtured and used for optimal value realization throughout one's
life-experience.
Ant McWatt comments:
Cosmic plan? Now THAT sounds deterministic!
Ham Priday continued:
We debate, argue, analyze, and analogize in this forum over whether Quality
is a monism, as if a monism is what is needed to make sense of a value-based
metaphysics, while doing our best to forget that we are all sensible
subjects. Neither Value nor Morality is an existent in itself.
Ant McWatt comments:
We just don't know either way whether value is an existent in itself. However,
it makes for a better metaphysics if you presume it is. As I've said before,
such a presumption "doesn't change the readings in the science lab one bit".
Ham Priday continued:
The "monism" you are looking for is Ultimate Reality, from which Value is
differentiated by human sensibility.
Ant McWatt comments:
And, therefore out of the MOQ, out of the remit of this Discussion group and
back in conventional Western philosophology!
Best wishes,
Ant
.
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
