[MD] MOQ and the Future: An Inquiry into Usefulness

[ARLO J BENSINGER JR]

[Mark]
I don't see how by using a different word you are changing anything.  I agree
that emerged is a better word, but it is no more precise than the word bestowed.

[Arlo]
I disagree. Words/labels always carry some degree of imprecision, but there are
better and worse terms. In this case, "emerge" is better than "create" since
"create", as an active verb, implies an agency/intention/deliberation/etc onto
its subject. 

Take my two examples. If you say, "Quality created carbon atoms", you
completely remove the DQ-freedom the MOQ describes those subatomic particles as
having. It makes them "pawns" in the orchestrations of Quality.

On the other hand, saying "Carbon atoms emerged as subatomic particles
exercised free value preference in response TO Quality", maintains the MOQ's
claim that things do things because they are "better". 

The crux of this is Platt's contention that we are not here by "chance", and he
demands "Quality created the world" as proof that "chance" was never a factor.
You see here a call for some manner of willful manipulation, some degree of
"intent", that ensures our existence was never uncertain, it was always
guaranteed. 

In saying "the world emerged as a response TO Quality", the freedom this
preserves does point that our "existence" was never "for certain". Indeed,
"certainty" denies "freedom". If you make "man" a certainty, as Platt does, you
in fact destroy the meaning of the MOQ, because the only way to do this is to
remove DQ as a factor from every "pre-man" pattern. 

This is why the MOQ is well characterized as an "AHA!" metaphysics. DQ points
to the unexpected, the unplanned, the uncertain, while SQ points to the
value-recognition inherent in the cosmos in response to this unexpectedness.
I'd even accept Platt's mostly moronic derision of "oops" if he'd realize that
saying the MOQ is "Oops/AHA!" is the "essence" of this metaphysical foundation.
(Or even "Oops/Bleech!" if you wanted to highlight the converse).

Indeed, since Pirsig (originally) liked triads, you could characterize the MOQ
as "Oops/AHA!/Ahhhhh...." "Oops"- the unexpected, AHA!- the free value response
to this. Ahhh... - the "latching" of this.

[Mark]
This can either be as a direct creation, or the creation of conditions that
allowed emergence.  Either way, you provide Quality with properties of creation.

[Arlo]
Sure. This is unavoidable. And it is WHY "all this is just an analogy". But
some analogies are "better", and in this case "which?" is clear.

[Mark]
The universe did not emerge in response to Quality, the universe emerged with
Quality (imo).  In this way one does not give Quality God-like powers.

[Arlo]
Its certainly a better way of saying it that "Quality created the universe". 

[Mark]
This is similar to the notion of emergence of everything from Tao.  The only
difference is that we believe that we understand the direction that is
emergence with Quality is going.

[Arlo]
I think you have to be careful you don't feed the intentional "I'm-not-a-theist
Theist" crowd, but the wording is mostly okay with me.