[MD] Dawkins a Materialist (is watching?]

[Ron Kulp]

Thanks Ham,
I get you, we're on the same page, the "eating" at me was what you had
said, Pirsig did not make the distinction
Between universal (Tao) and subjective (TE) quality as experienced by
our apparati THEN s/o
Just as you describe.  tao te ching " the way and it's virtue" Or
reality and it's quality once you read it with
 that in mind things fall into place and it loses It's mysticism. Falls
right in with a concept I'm working out
With  language and thought. 
what I Value is clarity.
Thank you again

-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/