[MD] Static latching & faith

[David M]

Hi Scott

Certainly we cannot conceive of experience without
qualoity, and we could argue that without experience there
would never be anyone to postulate a world. But sure
we can postulate a world without quality prior to life.
Objectifying-materialist forms of science, of course, does this.
The MOQ suggests that this assumption and postulation leads
to SOM. It suggest that an MOQ approach that drops the
postulation of a non-quality form of being isn wrong and
an assumption of the idea that all being must involve some
form of quality-experience gets rid of the well known
problems of the SOM set of assumptions. The proof of the MOQ
is in the better coherence of the overall picture.

Also mention that in experience we see that activity requires
quality-value-preferences and there is no decisive reason why
we should propose that this is not true for all activity, natural,
organic, inorganic, living, artificial, where there is genuine selection
between possible futures.

Not to say that there is no accidental events. I would not say the
glass choses to fall off the table. Such is SQ's mechanical character.
But at some point the road to being this sort of universe,with this sort
of gravity and molecular properties was chosen rather than another
possible world. The line is, of course, between contingent/accident
and agentive/meaning. I think our universe has both but more of the
latter than SOM recognises, and MOQ acknowledges this.

DM


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Scott Roberts" <jse885 at localnet.com>
To: <moq_discuss at moqtalk.org>
Sent: Tuesday, April 18, 2006 6:43 AM
Subject: Re: [MD] Static latching & faith


> Ant,
>
> Ant quotes Pirsig:
> "Faith is not required for an understanding of Quality. Here Quality
> succeeds where Bradley's Absolute and Hegel's Being and the Buddhist
> Nothingness and the Hindu Oneness and the theists' God and Allah and
> you-name-it; all of them fail.  For Quality, no faith is required because
> there is no way you can disbelieve that there is such a thing as Quality.
> You cannot conceive of or live in a world in which nothing is better than
> anything else." (Pirsig's Copleston Annotations, 2000, p.216)
>
> "I think it is extremely important to emphasize that the MOQ is pure
> empiricism.   There is nothing supernatural in it."  (Pirsig, 2000e in "A
> Critical Analysis of the MOQ" by Anthony McWatt, p.50)
>
> Scott:
> On the contrary, it is very easy to conceive of a world without Quality,
> namely the scientific materialist's assumption of what the universe was 
> like
> before there was life. True, one cannot conceive of human existence 
> without
> Quality, but the MOQ claims that there is Quality in the inorganic as well
> as in the human. That is a non-empirical assumption. One cannot conceive 
> of
> human existence without sensory perception either, but that does not imply
> that there is sensory perception in the inorganic.
>
> - Scott
>
>
> 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.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
>