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

[Arlo Bensinger]

[Steve]
I think you've just been saying that though the creative process is 
unpredictable, it is the accumulation of preferences rather than rolls of dice.

[Arlo]
Exactly. My entire point rests on the free value response (AHA!) to 
the unpredictable (DQ). And this necessitates "uncertainty". Without 
"uncertainty", there is no "freedom". And the MOQ extends "freedom" 
as the foundational response to ALL things, not just "people" but all 
patterns great and small (a freedom, of course, that rests on 
evolving degrees of agency).

[Steve]
I don't know how much Platt is promoting a sort of Qualigod. His 
responses to me suggest that he is not.

[Arlo]
His responses evidence a schizophrenia of sorts, he wants to deny 
theism while maintaining pretty much everything about theism except 
for the "personality" of any particular "god". His Qualigod functions 
in the same way as a god, ordering and creating the cosmos along some 
particular "plan" (evidenced by the "certainty" he holds in "mans" 
appearance).

[Steve]
But I suspect that Platt would like to preserve as much as he can in 
Christianity without the notion that God is a person-like entity. I 
think "God" for Platt is a metaphor for the creative aspect of the 
universe, for DQ.

[Arlo]
Well, sure. This is precisely what I've been saying, he is pouring 
the language of the MOQ onto a theistic perspective. The thing I will 
point out, however, is that "God" is not a metaphor for "DQ", BOTH 
are metaphors for the undefinable. And in this sense, I ask not only 
which term makes a better metaphor, but given the MOQ's metaphor what 
does that entail as a explanation.

My stance is the the MOQ's explanation rests on the free response to 
Quality. And from this free response is derived uncertainty, 
unpredictability... "chance". But value also provides the ground into 
which the unexpected is "latched".

It also denies that the cosmos was somehow created "for" man, what 
Platt's comment about quarks exhibiting value preference in order to 
make the cosmos recognizable by man. As stable patterns of value 
emerged from "beginning responses to Quality", conflict did not 
always favor the path of "greater freedom". Nor does it now.

[Steve]
I think the difference is just what you say. God "implies an 
intential force" while Quality has no plan, it is just a preference 
for betterness. But I do see DQ as referring to the creative aspect 
of the universe. I know what you are getting at, but I don't have a 
problem with the "create" metaphor. It does leave open the 
possibility of misunderstanding, but if we agree that Quality is not 
a person, then we should have no problem.

[Arlo]
In all cases, once we start recognizing that things ARE metaphors, we 
are usually okay. If we posit "Quality created carbon atoms" is a 
metaphor, we can ask, what is it a metaphor for? What is the 
"meaning" this particular metaphor conveys? Is it good? Are there 
better ones? Whether you want to offer the metaphor of Quality as a 
source, a foundation, a ground, a creative aspect, is really based on 
what understanding you are trying to offer. Each of these carry 
certain associations, each certain implications, each emphasize 
certain things.

My point is that the "emergence" or "ground" metaphor carries better 
explanatory power, and is more in-line with the MOQ, than a 
"creationist" metaphor. You can argue, that to someone who really 
understands the MOQ, they are in effect synonomous. Certainly Pirsig 
was not positing any form of theistic orchestration to the 
evolutionary process described in the MOQ. And yet this is precisely 
what denying uncertainty does, it mandates some manner of theistic 
intervention that ensures man's appearance was always certain.

In many ways, I do think Platt does agree with me, he simply can't 
bring himself to admit such a thing. The funny thing is, I do agree 
with Platt on a lot of this. Where we disagree is that even though he 
denies "intent", he demands it, even though he denies a "plan", he 
demands one through the certainty of man's appearance. And this is 
why he clings to the "Quality creates the world" metaphor, because it 
preserves the theistic implications of "purpose" and "design".  My 
point is that the expression "Quality created the world" is, for 
Platt, not a metaphor, but Holy Writ, it is for him "literal". And 
therein lies the "source" of my disagreement with him.

In any event, whether or not you feel I mischaracterize Platt, I do 
appreciate your understanding of what it is I am really saying.