[MD] Empirical and Historical

[Joseph Maurer]

On 7/22/09 10:56 PM, "Ham Priday" <hampday1 at verizon.net> wrote:


[Joe]
> I am pursuing a thread on MOQ Evolution. Your statement:
> "But the ultimate source of sensibility, value, change and difference
> is itself immutable" is flat out contradicted by description of the
> evolution of QUALITY by Pirsig.
 
[Ham]
Unfortunately you may be right, Joe.  If Pirsig's Quality (even as DQ) is
"evolutionary", it cannot represent the absolute, immutable source.  An
esthetic property like quality, beauty, goodness or value does not equate to
Essence, anyway, because it is relative to the subject.  Furthermore,
implied in my use of "absolute" is the notion of perfection, and a perfect
source is immutable because it has nothing better to "evolve to".
<snip>

Hi Ham,

[Joe]
I have trouble with the perception of  ³the absolute, immutable source.²
This is your conception of what you want me to understand.  How do you
perceive it?  Is it a matter of your faith?  My perception of undefined DQ
can be conceptualized only by analogy or metaphor.  Does ³dynamic²,
³undefined² have any meaning?   Is a conception of "evolution" more or less
reasonable than the conception of ³absolute, immutable source²?

[Joe]
The conception of ³quality, beauty, goodness, value is no less or no more
reasonable, relative to an individual subject than Essence is less or more
reasonable, relative to a subject.   Its explanatory power for every day
use, however, e. g. evolution, is much more refined than the analogy to an
³absolute immutable source², the perception of which will admit of no
creation, or differentiation through the ages. The undefined is only
perceived by analogy or metaphor, not conceived by attaching a meaning to a
word.  This is the strength of the MOQ where perception of the undefined is
the basis for the defined conception.  Undefined DQ has meaning.
 
[Joe]
There is no form of logic that can separate the concept ³quality² from
³absolute, immutable source.²   I have to appeal to an analogy.  I have to
trust my perception and I find ³DQ evolution² is more worthy of trust than
³ABSOLUTE, IMMUTABLE SOURCE².

Joe

> 
> On 7/22/09 3:25 PM, Joseph Maurer wrote:
> 
> 
>> Hi Ham,
>> 
>> I am pursuing a thread on MOQ Evolution.  Your statement:
>> "But the ultimate source of sensibility, value, change and difference
>> is itself immutable" is flat out contradicted by description of the
>> evolution of QUALITY by Pirsig.
> 
> Unfortunately you may be right, Joe.  If Pirsig's Quality (even as DQ) is
> "evolutionary", it cannot represent the absolute, immutable source.  An
> esthetic property like quality, beauty, goodness or value does not equate to
> Essence, anyway, because it is relative to the subject.  Furthermore,
> implied in my use of "absolute" is the notion of perfection, and a perfect
> source is immutable because it has nothing better to "evolve to".
> 
> I realized it was going out on a limb to suggest that Pirsig intended
> Quality to be the primary source of existence.  However, the author of MoQ
> equated Quality with Reality.  And since its equivalent connotation 'Value'
> is derived from the source and figures prominently in my ontogeny, there
> seemed to be a commonality of sorts between our philosophies.  But you have
> now astutely pointed out the incompatability.
> 
>> My sense is that for Pirsig evolution is not speculation, but the
>> metaphysical description for levels of Quality. These levels become
>> the metaphysical basis for morality.
> 
> Quite frankly, I have never bought into this theory.  Morality is not
> intrinsic to the universe.  The basis for morality is value sensibility,
> which is a subjective property.  That is why individuals collectively (in
> different cultures) adopt different moral systems.  The ability to discern
> value, as in worthiness, excellence and goodness, is a distinctly human
> function.  It is this finely-tuned human attribute which affords the
> individual free choice within a virtually infinite range of options.  If
> Value were universal, free choice would be impossible, and "evolution to
> betterness" would be an automatic progression (without man).
> 
> Value, like intellect and passion, is not an extracorporeal realm of the
> cosmos but a sensibility realized only by human beings.  As an essentialist,
> I believe that value-sensibility is not only the essence of man but the
> meaning and purpose of his life-experience.  What disturbs me about the
> Quality thesis is that Pirsig refers to man only in the collective or
> cultural sense, and his "cosmic morality" leaves the reader without a sense
> of individual purpose.  Instead, man simply appears on the scene as a
> byproduct of nature, as if to fulfill a "level of quality", and is swept
> along in its inexorable movement toward betterness.  In my opinion, the
> thesis falls short of defining man's role in existence.
> 
> Thanks for making this point, Joe.  I'll be interested to see if the
> Pirsigians can reconcile these differences, even if they have no reason to
> do so.
> 
> 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/