[MD] Mereological nihilism

[Ham Priday]

Dear Marsha --



> Your objection to the MOQ is its lack of 'primary source' and
> 'purpose'.  It seems to me that these two concepts are built on ideas
> within the evolution and limitations of human knowledge.  What proof
> or experience can you offer for these concepts?  In using the word
> 'primary', you are stating something specific.  This adjective leads
> me to ask why the source couldn't be the third or ninth in series of
> processes?  And the word purpose would imply intention, what can you
> tell me about this intention and the desired results?  I have asked
> these question before, but you have not given a response.  Yet you
> trot out the word 'nihilism' to point out their absence?  It seems to
> me nothing is absent.

I do not "object" to the MoQ, I simply find it metaphysically inadequate. 
For example, it seems to me that Pirsig has taken morality out of the human 
domain and applied it to the universe at large.  Well, if the universe is 
moral, so is nature and nature's man.  Why, then, should anyone strive for 
morality?  What purpose does life serve if nature is innately moral?  Pirsig 
suggests that we try to "discover" that principle on the premise that "some 
things are better than others".  That would make our role in existence 
discovering its Quality or Goodness rather than actualizing it through our 
decisions and behavior.

You are correct that purpose implies intention.  Without a primary source 
the only agent with "intent" is man.  If man is predesigned to be moral, his 
intent must also be moral.  This would mean he isn't free to choose 
compassion, responsibility, and goodness over savagery, bestiality, and 
murder.  Clearly, that isn't the case.  On the other hand, teleology 
(metaphysical purpose) reflects the "intent" of the primary source which, I 
maintain, is creating an autonomous agent to bring Value into awareness, 
thereby making being aware.  I have defined Essence as the "uncreated" 
absolute source, which means that it is self-sufficient and not subject to 
the "comings and goings" of actualized existence.  Pirsig refuses to 
acknowledge a primary metaphysical source, presumably because of its 
theological implications.  Therefore the MoQ is consistent only if the moral 
and psychic attributes of consciousness are posited as "patterns and levels" 
of Quality.  Since I believe in an anthropocentric universe, that's an 
ontology I can't accept.

[Marsha, from second message]:
> What is metaphysics?  RMP stated his reluctance to create a
> metaphysics of quality.  With that admonition he went ahead to create
> the MOQ.  To me the MOQ is a framework in which to explore the
> boundaries and holes in my own limited knowledge.  By making Quality
> indivisible, indefinable and unknowable the MOQ is expansive.  By
> demanding that it include a primary source and purpose, I think you
> are promoting unnecessary restrictions.  If my mind is Swiss cheese,
> than possibly the holes allow for the better, more dynamic experiences.
>
> Any thoughts?

Dagobert Runes defines the traditional meaning of Metaphysics as "the 
science of being as such, to be distinguished from the study of being from 
some particular aspect."  But since being is a subject/object contingency, 
and objects are perceived as finite and relational, I prefer Essence (as 
distinguished from existence) to name the primary source.  For me, 
metaphysics is the theory of reality beyond experiential knowledge.  Such 
theory can only be hypothetical, of course, so I can offer no "empirical 
proof" for my
metaphysical concepts.  All knowledge comes from experience, but if you base 
your reality perspective entirely on knowledge, you will gain more from 
Science than Philosophy.  The latter draws on logic,  intuition, and reason. 
Instead of exploring "new frontiers" of knowledge, which is as fallible as 
experience, Philosophy (especially metaphysics) attempts to identify the 
fundamental nature of reality and apply reasoned hypotheses to account for 
what we experience.

You say that "by demanding that it include a primary source and purpose, I 
think you are promoting
unnecessary restrictions."   I don't see that at all.  For me, failing to 
consider primacy and purpose imposes an unnecessary restriction on 
understanding.  It also reveals a prejudicial attitude toward spirituality 
and supra-natural or transcendental beliefs.  (Another reason for my use of 
the offensive term.)

These are valid questions, Marsha, and they demonstrate that you are 
thinking--whether with swiss cheese or gray matter.  If you're still talking 
to me when my book comes out, I'll send you a complimentary copy.

Love,
Ham