Mark, Andre, and All --
On 6/28 Mark Smith introduced the question "Is Quality a monism?" with this
provocative statement:
By describing Quality as the cause of results, we are not left
with anything static to hold on to. One can personalize such
Quality by describing it as an Intention, or a Relationship. A
relationship exists between two things (for example), but is
NOT either of those things. In fact, one can simply turn the
logic and say that the relationship CREATES the two things.
I have brought this in to the discussion a number of times;
one time poetically by describing Quality as "the golden
threads" that lie between, create, and hold together.
Since then the "monism" question has dominated the MD, eliciting over 30
posts in less than a month's time. Clearly this marathon indicates general
confusion over just what this indefinable thing called Quality is and how it
functions in creating reality.
Today Andre saw fit to chastise Mark for suggesting that Quality could be
discussed "descriptively":
You keep on wanting 'thoughts on Quality'. You think the MoQ
is one 'description' of Quality. Jeez man, what is there to say
about Quality? A 'nothingness within which there is great
working'? (a la Katigiri Roshi?)
But is that a fair criticism in a forum whose very purpose is to discuss the
Metaphysics of Quality? I suspect the author himself would be appalled by
such dismissal of his central concept.
As a free-thinker with a different approach to Value (which Pirsig equated
with Quality), may I offer some clarification that may help to resolve this
dilemma?
What do the words "love", "desire", "admiration", "beauty", and
"fulfillment" have in common with positive Value or Quality? Answer:
they're all indefinable "nexotic" terms that allude to the linkage or bond
between two modes of reality. When reality is posited as a bipolar
modality, ontologists call it a "dichotomy". The dichotomy I specifically
refer to is Otherness divided by Sensibility and it represents what we call
Existence. Obviously, both contingents of this dichotomy are connected;
otherwise reality would be a dualism.
I submit that what binds Sensibility to Otherness is the relational Value
between them. That Value is made sensible (realized subjectively) by the
experience of otherness as differentiated Being. Once that happens, we have
the appearance of a pluralistic reality in which a multitude of entities
arise, change, and disappear in the dimensions of time and space; that is to
say, Existence as commonly experienced.
I further submit that Pirsig's ontology scrupulously avoids mention of any
other reality, dealing exclusively with the multi-dimensional, historical
universe and its evolution of human society. As a consequence, the Quality
he presents has no copula or "monistic"? referent, leaving readers to
determine for themselves the nature of this Value as a metaphysical
principle. In other words, the MOQ fails to posit an Ultimate Reality which
would complete his thesis and make Quality the nexus that binds the sensible
self to other-being.
We won't find a cure for this omission in the writings of James, Roshi, or
the Tetralemma. Ultimate Reality is strictly a metaphysical issue, and
without acknowledging the sensible agent's relation to the ultimate source,
life has no meaning or purpose beyond empirical utilitarianism.
Thank you for allowing this interjection. I can only hope it proves
helpful.
Essentially yours,
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
