[MD] Empirical and Historical

[skutvik at online.no]

Joe and Ham

24. July:
Hopefully it was Joe who wrote this: 

> > There is no form of logic that can separate the concept "quality"
> > from "absolute, immutable source."   I have to appeal to an analogy.
> >  I have to trust my perception and I find "DQ evolution" is more
> > worthy of trust than "ABSOLUTE, IMMUTABLE SOURCE".

Agree, I find no difference between "absolute" and "dynamic quality", 
but what's more, I find no difference between concepts (language) and 
those realities. If this latter distinction is upheld nothing can transcend 
SOM, everything we THINK or SAY is just subjective words about an 
immutable reality out there.   

Ham:

> Okay, I get the point that the term "absolute, immutable source"
> doesn't charm you.  But you must understand that there is a world of
> difference between what is "absolute" and "immutable" and what is
> "finite" and "transient".  Nothing in existence meets the former. 
> Nothing in Essence meets the latter.  The MoQ world boils down to
> nothing more than the SOM world divided into four arbitrary levels.

What's the difference? The MOQ postulates an absolute immutable 
source that has spawned the known static levels. The ocean have finite 
and transient forms (waves and currents) but is absolute and immutable 
in itself because waves and currents are water too. This is the DQ/SQ 
relationship and must necessarily be the one between your absolute 
and finite.

But the many quasi moqist of this site (not Joe though!) do just what 
you say: "... boil the MoQ down to nothing more than the SOM world 
divided into four arbitrary levels". Could not have said it better.

Bodvar




   

   






> 
> --Ham
> 
> _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
> _ _ _
> 
> > 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/
> 
>