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

[markhsmit at aol.com]

Hi Arlo,
I'm not sure what you mean by this last comment.  Taoism is not theist
in any way.  There is no supreme intelligent being.  Taoism is a
metaphysical philosophy on being, just in the same way MoQ is.
I believe Pirsig used Taoism as a basis for Quality.  The difference lies
in that Taoism does not suppose a significant quality to the
intelligence of man.  MoQ does just this, which is fine
if we are to discuss our place in the universe.  My post
originally was to get feedback on what does MoQ bring
us?  It is fun to talk about, but what is its place in the
evolution of man?

Mark


[Mark]
his is similar to the notion of emergence of everything from Tao.  The only
ifference is that we believe that we understand the direction that is
mergence with Quality is going.
[Arlo]
 think you have to be careful you don't feed the intentional "I'm-not-a-theist
heist" crowd, but the wording is mostly okay with me.




-----Original Message-----
From: ARLO J BENSINGER JR <ajb102 at psu.edu>
To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
Sent: Mon, Nov 16, 2009 4:37 am
Subject: Re: [MD] MOQ and the Future: An Inquiry into Usefulness



[Mark]
 don't see how by using a different word you are changing anything.  I agree
hat emerged is a better word, but it is no more precise than the word bestowed.
[Arlo]
 disagree. Words/labels always carry some degree of imprecision, but there are
etter and worse terms. In this case, "emerge" is better than "create" since
create", as an active verb, implies an agency/intention/deliberation/etc onto
ts subject. 
Take my two examples. If you say, "Quality created carbon atoms", you
ompletely remove the DQ-freedom the MOQ describes those subatomic particles as
aving. It makes them "pawns" in the orchestrations of Quality.
On the other hand, saying "Carbon atoms emerged as subatomic particles
xercised free value preference in response TO Quality", maintains the MOQ's
laim 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
emands "Quality created the world" as proof that "chance" was never a factor.
ou see here a call for some manner of willful manipulation, some degree of
intent", that ensures our existence was never uncertain, it was always
uaranteed. 
In saying "the world emerged as a response TO Quality", the freedom this
reserves does point that our "existence" was never "for certain". Indeed,
certainty" denies "freedom". If you make "man" a certainty, as Platt does, you
n fact destroy the meaning of the MOQ, because the only way to do this is to
emove DQ as a factor from every "pre-man" pattern. 
This is why the MOQ is well characterized as an "AHA!" metaphysics. DQ points
o the unexpected, the unplanned, the uncertain, while SQ points to the
alue-recognition inherent in the cosmos in response to this unexpectedness.
'd even accept Platt's mostly moronic derision of "oops" if he'd realize that
aying 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
s "Oops/AHA!/Ahhhhh...." "Oops"- the unexpected, AHA!- the free value response
o this. Ahhh... - the "latching" of this.
[Mark]
his can either be as a direct creation, or the creation of conditions that
llowed emergence.  Either way, you provide Quality with properties of creation.
[Arlo]
ure. This is unavoidable. And it is WHY "all this is just an analogy". But
ome analogies are "better", and in this case "which?" is clear.
[Mark]
he universe did not emerge in response to Quality, the universe emerged with
uality (imo).  In this way one does not give Quality God-like powers.
[Arlo]
ts certainly a better way of saying it that "Quality created the universe". 
[Mark]
his is similar to the notion of emergence of everything from Tao.  The only
ifference is that we believe that we understand the direction that is
mergence with Quality is going.
[Arlo]
 think you have to be careful you don't feed the intentional "I'm-not-a-theist
heist" crowd, but the wording is mostly okay with me.

Moq_Discuss mailing list
istinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
ttp://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
rchives:
ttp://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
ttp://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/