Evening, Mark --
Hi Ham,
On Mon, Jul 9, 2012 at 1:55 PM, Ham Priday <[email protected]> wrote:
Ham:
I would add that "Quality" as redefined by RMP corrupts the
common aesthetic attribution of the word by inferring that a
proprietary human appraisal has an independent existence.
Pirsig's introduction of Quality is meant to get one thinking along a
different line of awareness. It is not meant to spoon-feed any one
on "Truths". That you find it ambiguous is a good thing, at least
that will get you wondering what he means. From ambiguity comes
self-realization. Any philosophy that pretends to be the way things
are is not my cup of tea. You ask us to accept a lot in Essentialism,
yet you accept nothing of MoQ. Is this not a bit one sided in terms
of a discussion?
You disappoint me with an apologist defense that I would have expected of
Ant, Arlo, or DMB. The MoQ was advanced as a philosophy, Mark; and a
philosophy that evades "Truths" with ambiguous references instead of
explaining "how things are" is unlikely to outlive the critics.
It isn't true that I accept nothing of MoQ. I accept the concept of Value
(Quality) as fundamental to man's reality. But Value is not self-sufficient
or independent of man, and does not account for our existence. If being
"one-sided" means that I am biased toward individual valuism, I plead no
contest. It's what makes the philosophy of Essence unique and meaningful.
I happen to prefer the word "Value", which Pirsig equates
with Quality, chiefly because it is also a verb. This allows us
to express a statement such as, "Chocolate is good for John
because he values it." But neither Value nor Quality
connotes Reality, Nor can a subjective assessment serve
as the progenitor or Creator of the universe.
I could say that value, as you use it, is an expression of Quality.
It is not the creation of a human, but is instead an interpretation
by a human. I am sure I am sounding like a broken record here.
But maybe it will sink in. It may be useful to step back for a
moment and view humans as participants, not as an anointed
species. If you don't think that a monkey knows a good banana
from a bad banana, then you are in complete denial. Yes, our
system of valuation may be more complex, but it is still the same
thing. Since you are expecting this from me, I will continue
to say that our valuation is no different from a river choosing
a path down to the ocean. It is all basically the same thing.
We are not somehow more special. Everything is special.
Peace and love and all that jazz... Raise the world to the
level which you hold yourself before it is too late (doomsday
music in the background). Repent I say! Praise Quality!
That last statement is supposed to be followed with a quiet "val-
yew" (as in amen). Just put that in to satisfy those who think
I am so righteous.
Once we separate ourselves from all else, we are lost. The
rapid destructiveness of man is unprecedented in the history of
species. This is because man thinks he is different and somehow
the king of nature. He creates a false distinction between man
made and natural. He tries so hard not to blend with this world,
(something which Taoism teaches us to do). Man is so
incredibly afraid of death, that anything goes. He becomes
isolated in his little ego. It is all natural, every last bit of it,
man and his creations included. It is all part of a tendency
(The Way). If one wants to be a positivist, then one can say
that it is all towards "betterness". Of course one can also be
a negative person and think otherwise; think, that is, that
everything else is simply an accident just marching along. We
each have that choice to make since we have free will. Ham
are you and the rest of us cast adrift in this existential world,
or are we together with everything else? Are we alone
exceptional, or is everything exceptional?
If everything were exceptional, relative value would be meaningless. And
relative value is all that we can experience. Man is exceptional by any
measure you can come up with -- rationally, historically, cognitively,
morally, cuoturally, esthetically, innovationally, productively,
emotionally, and spiritually. This gives him the freedom and autonomy to
rule the world, ponder its mysteries, and choose the future course of
civilization.
So tell me, Ham, are you in or are you out? Are you with this
world or are you separate from it? Can everything project value,
or only you? Are you part of it, or are you in charge of it?
Do you make the rules, or do the rules make you? Essence is
amused by your arrogance. It is all the same to Essence.
Essence does not play favorites.
Like you, I am very much a participant of this world. I do not consider
empirical existence the only realty, however. The "rules" of nature are not
mine but are embued in the Master Design which we sense valuistically.
Value, sensibility, being, and the design are all derived from the uncreated
Source. Real arrogance is to dismiss this truth and pretend that we are
here by some accident of nature and must yield to the vicissitudes of fate
or, what is even worse, an indefinable force that moves us indefinably
toward an indefinable betterness.
I like the word Essence. Quality is Essence. It just has
a higher descriptive quality than simply saying Essence.
But, what's in a word anyway. Why don't you just call it
Quality if it is all the same to you? It would still be your
Essence. Trust me.
What's in a word, indeed? A primary source is an essential premise for
ultimate reality. Essentiality defines the non-descriptive nature of
reality. Plus, it identifies that which precedes all created entities.
Quality does not meet any of these criteria. So why not call it Essence?
You can't get any more fundamental than that. Trust me.
'Til next time,
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
