[MD] Ham thinks the MOQ is a form of phenomenalism

[Ham Priday]

Okay, Mark, here's Pt. II of my comments on yours...

[By the way, I erroneously typed SQ for DQ twice in the last question of the
previous post, but I expect you'll note the errors and figure out what I was
saying.]

Mark:
> DQ is metaphorically termed the cutting edge of reality
> from which our static knowledge is extruded, rather like
> the vapour trail from a jet engine.  If you consider our
> understanding to BE the vapour trail itself then the vapour
> trail can't encapsulate it's source can  it?

This metaphor for "awakening" to Quality or "intellectual understanding"
seems to resonate with the MoQ crowd, and I suppose it's because the term
"cutting edge" offers a transition point from the traditional notion of
Oneness to the pluralistic experience of the 'NOW'.  Like the extruding end
of an office paper shredder or the butcher's meat grinder, what "comes out"
is a continuous stream of differentiated values (i.e., your 'vapor trail').
While this analogy is conceptually useful -- and makes proprietary awareness
a part of the stream -- I still think  Pirsig's ontology would have been
better served had he reversed SQ and DQ; that is, made the Source "static
quality" and the Experience "dynamic quality".

The most difficult challenge for a philosopher is to explain how 'the One'
gives rise to 'the Many', how Difference and contrariety arise from Unity
and non-contradiction.  Indeed, the value of a metaphysical thesis hangs on
the author's ability to come up with a workable ontology.  Pirsig and I both
base our ontologies on experience.  Perhaps by concocting a similar paradigm
for the philosophy of Essence you will gain a better understanding of my
perspective.

According to Cusan logic (and the law of contradiction) existents are
"contingencies"; that is, a thing can not exist without the potentiality of
it not existing.  Possibility and actuality are co-dependent in existence
but coincide in the non-contradictory Source, in which opposites like
'positive/negative' and 'being/nothing' are equivalent.  If "things" are
what exist, then their potentiality to exist is the "other side of the
coin."  Things exist not by their own necessity but by the potential of a
necessary source.  Essence is Absolute Potentiality, and its mode of
creation is negation.  What it negates is an "otherness" that we call
sensible awareness.  Awareness is the primary differential contingency; by
itself it is nothing (literally a "no-thing").  It's a subject that requires
an object: the appearance of beingness.  It derives this object from the
value of its estranged Essence.  For something to be it must be made aware.
So existence is the  "actualization" of the dichotomy beingness/awareness.
And, by virtue of the fact that this contingency is a negation of absolute
"unity", everything in existence is differentiated.  The immutable One
actualizes the transitional Many.


Ham:
> I would turn your assertion around and say
> a world without awareness would kill Quality.

Mark:
> Ah! Apologies Ham. You see, for you death is a substance
> based concept and equates to biological death.
> The MoQ is more subtle than that. Life without, 'Love,
> Beauty, Freedom, Compassion, or Spirituality' is less
> Dynamic and therefore more static and therefore less
> alive and more dead.  In a value centred metaphysics
> like the MoQ you can kill more than biological patterns;
> you can kill intellectual patterns and social patterns
> and still remain biologically alive. ...
> To cling to Dynamic Quality alone apart from any static
> patterns is to cling to chaos. ...
> Static quality patterns are dead when they are exclusive,
> when they demand blind obedience and suppress Dynamic
> change.  But static patterns, nevertheless, provide a necessary
> stabilizing force to protect Dynamic progress from
> degeneration.  Although Dynamic Quality, the Quality of
> freedom, creates this world in which we live, these patterns
> of static quality, the quality of order, preserve our world.
> Neither static nor Dynamic Quality can survive without the
> other.' (Lila. ch. 9)

Here you go, quoting Pirsig at me again.  The prose is beautiful and the
alliteration is wonderful, but the moral concept it claims to substantiate
carries no more weight than an idealist's dream.  It's nice and
psychologically uplifting to think of reality as an evolution toward some
utopic end.  But there is no evidence or logical support for the idea that
this is a moralistic world, or that "static" and "dynamic" patterns will get
us there.  On what grounds do you assert: "Dynamic Quality, the Quality of
freedom, creates this world."?   Where is Pirsig's thesis for equating
Freedom with Quality?

Ham:
> Where do the patterns come from?

Mark:
> Again, the patterns emerge from a struggle of Dynamic
> pushes forward.

What does that mean?  Why are "forces' struggling?  In my reality, I see
PEOPLE struggling, not Nature.  Pirsig's Dynamic universe usurps man's
innate creativity, intellect, choicemaking, and conflict, denying his
freedom and essentially "pushing" him to some undefined end.  Whatever else
the MoQ may be, it is certainly not a recipe for individualism.

Again, you say...
Mark:
> The moves forward are Dynamic, open, and become
> more free as evolution progresses. The goal is DQ itself.

If the universe progresses by evolution to its own goal, what's in it for
man?  How does the individual participate as an active existent in such a
world?  What role does man serve, if any?   I continue to see this as a
glaring omission of Pirsig's philosophy.

And again,
Mark:
> The patterns are won and lost in the Dynamic forge
> of evolutionary development.  The good patterns like
> DNA and Democracy survive while competing patterns
> lost out.

Then why not let the patterns fight it out, and let man dream or something?

[SNIP]

Mark:
> I'm suggesting the vast energetic fizz of atomic activity
> is very low level awareness appropriate to the environment.

Ham:
> It is a substitute for Teleology in which the constituents
> of Nature are "pulled" toward an ultimate state by a
> supernatural force.

Mark:
> 'I agree with these dictionary definitions of supernatural:
> 1. Of or relating to existence outside the natural world.
> 2. Attributed to a power that seems to violate or go beyond
> natural forces.
> 3. Of or relating to a deity.
> 4. Of or relating to the immediate exercise of divine power;
> miraculous.
> 5. Of or relating to the miraculous.  I should add that
> Shunryu Suzuki has quipped that Zen is "supernatural"
> in the sense of being super natural, that is, more natural than
> what is usually meant by natural.'  (McWatt. 2004. p.49)

I don't know what Ant is trying to prove here.  I can accept #1 but see no
need for the remaining qualifications.

Mark:
> Fair enough. If you have rationally deduced there to be
> a creator and Humanity is its special buddy then so be it.
> re: postmodernism. I'm not a fan. I think it's a load of garbage.
> re: memes. A nod toward recognising an independent social
> level of evolution by science itself.
> re: biogenesis. I don't know what this is. I'll have to look it up.
> re: sweet spots. Part of experience. Explain them?
> re: low-level awareness. Too low to be worried about.
> It's so immoral all life tries to move away from it.

Ham:
> Rather than acknowledge awareness as proprietary to the
> individual,  Pirsig marginalizes human sensibility and
> distributes awareness throughout the experienced  universe,
> describing its affects on atoms, rocks, trees, and evolution  itself.

Mark:
> As does Plotinus and Spinoza so it's not unheard  of.
> And Human sensibility is not marginalised by this, it is in  fact
> prioritised as the more moral. ...In other words, the most
>  recent portions of the vapour trail are the more moral.

Ham: More  smoke!

Mark:
> No, seriously, Intellectual values are the most moral, dynamic,
> and worthwhile according to the MoQ.
> This is why i support you Ham even if you can't see the holes
> in your thesis.

Ham:
> I happen to like harmony and cogency.
> Why should I strive to reach a point called Chaos?

Mark:
> What are you talking about:
> 1. Here and now?
> 2. The start?
> 3. The end?

The whole damned thing!

[ZIP the discussion of Eastern tradition -- it's only "clues" and nonsense.]

Ham [on what Mark regards as "a pile of toss"]
> Since everything in the (experiential) universe is Being,
> and all Being is divided, mankind and Intelligence are divided.
> But man's awareness is unique in that it is divided from Being,
> thus has no existence except as it perceives Being as its object.
> This perception is an intellectual construct derived from its
> affinity for Essence, which we call Value.
> The poet muses  that 'Love is what makes the world go 'round,'
> but Value is what makes the world.
> And Value would not exist were there no awareness of  it.
> It is the individual, therefore, who by sensing the Value of  the
> Source makes being-aware.  And that which is of value  to
> the individual is the Essence of his Being.

Mark:
> It is a low quality appraisal and i apologise for  it.
>
> You are neither here, nor there.
> It seems to me you are a staunch individualist of the
> Ayn Rand mould and have shoehorned your cherry pickings
> from what philosophy you have read to  support it.

For your information, I have great admiration for Ayn Rand as an advocate
for individualism; however, I have written several essays that demonstrate
her weakness as a metaphysical theorist.  Rand is the archetype Objectivist,
definitely not an Essentialist.

I shall leave the following close "for the record".

Mark:
> The world of metaphysics you enjoy and explore is a
> fascinating and worthwhile endeavour. May it provide  you
> with hours of fun.  I too have studied Plotinus and that  kind
> of thing, and i've been lucky enough to have done so with
> an expert; we're talking Oxford bloke who spoke ancient greek
> when he  was 12 and reads Plotinus in the original. The same
> man is a fan of  Pirsig by the way and indicated similarities
> between ZMM and the Enneads  to me.
> My fragile mind tried to cope with those things i was
>  introduced to, and i enjoyed it all.
> I love Plotinus, Aristotle, Plato and allot else, but the
> MoQ has, IMHO hit the nail on the head.
>  The Western tradition is valuable and part of value evolution.
> But it's  2006 and we have a whole global cultural vista before
> us which began to  open up after the second world war when
> Northrop wrote, 'The meeting of East and West'
> -  a book which inspired Pirsig to explore more than  we had
> up to that point been able to comprehend.
> This forum,  MOQ.org exists because of the increasing
> dialogue between diverse philosophical traditions, and i
> find it a tad insulting that you have  been using it to force
> your own views with a lack of grace. I support  you in
> your enquiry. I value your enquiry. But you have conducted
> your enquiry with a sneering disregard and barely  hidden
> contempt for ideas you repeatedly reveal to be ignorant of.
> And in philosophy Ham, that is a poor show.
> You are a guest here and you've been caught pissing
> in the Whiskey.

Ham:
> Well, don't hold back on my account, Mark.
> I gave you the best I had, but I'm  just a passing inquirer
> in this forum.  I never studied at Oxford and only took
> one Philosophy course, let alone having a professor who
> spoke ancient Greek at 12.  I guess Northrop was lucky
> to have been born at a time when value had evolved enough
> for him to make a contribution.  I'll overlook the deprecating
> comments, but I am sorry you think that I've "forced my own
> views" on you.  It was my intention to have a productive
> and congenial dialogue with someone who was interested in
> my philosophy and open to new perspectives.  Apparently,
> you had another agenda for which I don't qualify.

Mark:
> Come off it Ham? You've been talking down your nose
> about this MoQ lark as if you're having to contemplate a dog turd.
> I've not studied at Oxford. But if someone has and they know
> their Plotinus and they quite like ZMM and promote an
> enthusiastic engagement with things philosophical then i feel
> we can too?
> Take your vapour trail quips in this very thread?
> There's no need for it is there?
> I mean, i am trying to get what may be an unfamiliar point
> of view across to you and all i get is sarcasm.
> It doesn't have to be like this.

No it doesn't, Mark.

Best regards,
Ham