[MD] Dawkins a Materialist (is watching?]

[Ron Kulp]

Ham,
the levels and divisions are slippery and one can easily be led into
several logic traps, it becomes a mine field
Of concentric, spiral logic if you don't pay close attention.
-x

-----Original Message-----
From: moq_discuss-bounces at moqtalk.org
[mailto:moq_discuss-bounces at moqtalk.org] On Behalf Of Ham Priday
Sent: Thursday, January 25, 2007 11:52 PM
To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
Subject: Re: [MD] Dawkins a Materialist (is watching?]


Greetings, Ron --


[Ham, to Arlo]:
> Do you accept my view that Value (Quality) is subjective?

[Ron]:
> This concept has been eating me, I hope you can shed some light, 
> quality, subjective I would say yes As I understand the Tao te ching 
> or reality and its quality, works the same way.
> There is reality-Tao-universal then the-quality-subjective reality 
> once the mind perceives it through our senses then the subject/object 
> divide-intellect.

I suppose having a concept "eating" you means you're having trouble
accepting it.  You'll see from Arlo's last message that he has no such
trouble: he adheres doggedly to the MoQ doctrine that Quality, as a
universal principle, "comes before objects and subjects."

I'm not conversant with Taoism, but when you say "...once the mind
perceives [reality] through our senses, THEN the subject/object divide,"
it looks to me as if the "Tao-universal" is there first.  You also refer
to the Tao te ching "and its quality", but I don't know if its quality
equates with its identity.  Is the Tao-universal the primary reality, or
is it Quality?  As you know, Pirsig's position is that Quality is the
primary reality.

Since I'm a free-thinking contrarian [Platt's term], I don't presume to
speak for the MoQ.  But, as I just said to Arlo, by all common
definitions, Quality is a relative measure of value or worth.  Unless
Mr. Prisig has redefined it for his purposes -- he refuses to define it
for us -- this necessitates both a subject (who measures the value or
judges the worth) and a referent object to which this subjective
appraisal applies.  In other words, the perception of Value (Quality)
requires the S/O split.  My argument all along has been that since
everything in existence is relative and divided, including man himself,
existence is not the primary reality (your Tao-te-ching?).

I assume primary reality to be uncreated, absolute, and indivisible.
Therefore, it cannot be a contingency that is dependent on a perception
or appraisal of something else.  Arlo insists that my Essence is a
metaphor, and perhaps it is.  But it's no more metaphoric than Pirsig's
Quality.
Moreover, Essence logically qualifies as the primary reality, which
Quality does not.

I think Bo Slutvik is smack on when he talks about "the value of the S/O
divide," but I think he's wrong in wanting to redefine this as "the
intellectual level."  I don't believe in a collective Intellect.  I view
man's sense of Value as pre-intellectual, and I attribute "mind",
"conscious awareness", and "intellect" as proprietary and exclusive to
the individual subject.

Have I shed any light on this issue, Ron?  Or are you now thoroughly
confused?   Keep this in mind: However you resolve the enigma, it will
be
your own value judgment.

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.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/