[MD] The Quest for Quality

[Ham Priday]

Magnus --


While you were complaining to Margaret of my "un-netiquette" behavior, I was 
pondering your previous accusation that I had misinterpreted Pirsig's DQ:

> First of all, it's not DQ that is the *primary* source, it's Q.
> DQ is a part of Q, not the other way around.

Interesting.  Your interpretation would imply that Quality consists of two 
parts, one "dynamic" and the other "static".   If that's correct, I assume 
that 'Q' is, and has always been, a dualistic source that includes the 
patterns as a self-contained contingency or potentiality.  That helps me 
understand why Bo has theorized that "Intellect is the value of the SQ/DQ 
divide".  You need something to parse "pure Q" into differentiated patterns, 
and Intellect may logically be construed as that agency.  So, in effect, the 
complete cosmology is a qualitative trilogy consisting of DQ, SQ, plus 
Intellect.

> Then, if you apply Occam's razor you seem so fond of
> to a Creator vs. Q, what is most likely?
>
> * That a walking, talking magician has always been around
> and suddenly decides to create the universe. And that's a
> pretty daunting task. As far as we know, there are around
> 100 billion galaxies, the Milky Way has around 200 billion stars, each 
> with an average of about 5 planets with a bunch
> of moons each.  That's 100*10^9 * 200*10^9 (not counting
> planets or moons). Then if we count the number of seconds
> since the Big Bang (~ 15 billion years ago), we get 15*10^9 * 365 * 24 * 
> 60 * 60 = 4,73*10^17. That means this creator
> had 0,000023652 seconds to create each star in the universe.
> But the bible claims it took 6 days to create just the earth, but later 
> "interpretations" have extended that time to 6000
> years or whatever.
>
> * Or that DQ (which is the changing/creating part of Q)
> initiated the spark that we call the Big Bang and that the
> universe has developed more or less like science has laid
> out since then.

You present me with a choice of options, neither of which makes sense 
because they are both based on existential precepts.  You are trying to 
explain creation as a space/time process involving objective components --  
galaxies, planets, moons, Bangs, seconds, days, years, etc. -- all of which 
are experientially-derived intellectual constructs.  What they don't address 
is the awareness which is the "knower" of this construct.  Without 
subjective cognizance you don't have an objective universe.

You also seem to think Essentialism is founded on biblical doctrine.  Let me
disabuse you of this confusion.  Creation is not a chain of events that 
started with a cataclysmic event and runs its course from alpha to omega. 
That's the scientific paradigm.  Nor was the universe created in six days by 
a Divine Being, which is Judeo-Christian allegory.  Creation as a human 
conception, is the appearance of process, difference, and value as an 
ongoing relational system.  It is the intellectual product of being-aware 
(MY primary dichotomy).

> But you do keep the discussion as far from the MoQ
> as you possibly can.

Not true.  As demonstrated above, I strive to reach whatever accord is 
possible between two fundamentally different cosmologies which have Value, 
and the quest for truth, in common.

And, just so you know, I DO have an online forum of my own at 
www.essentialism.net .

Regards,
Ham