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

[John Carl]

Oh my word.  I didn't realize how far this thread has carried and now I'm
jumpin' in the waters for sure.

Lookout!  CANNONBALL!!!

On Mon, Nov 16, 2009 at 4:37 AM, ARLO J BENSINGER JR <ajb102 at psu.edu> wrote:

> [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.
>
>
John]

Yeah and I got a similar with problem with "emerged".  It seems to me
fraught with fantasy conjecture and connotation stemming from psychological
motivation to have an explanation - like a baby's head emerging from a womb.
 But who can prove that emergence ever occured?  Perhaps the whole
Quality/Cosmos continuum has always existed in current form with no
emerge-ancy needed.

The true facts we have before us is simply the whole enchilada as it is now,
as postulated - the Quality/Cosmos continuum.  There might be good words to
describe its history, there might be better words.  But the fact that it is,
is enough for metaphysical beginnings.  Is, is enough.  Although to avoid
confusion I guess I could throw Ham a bone and call it "esse".  Sigh.
 Essense is enough.  Happy Ham?

I have a similar issue with Biocentrism, which avers that the cosmos is *
caused* by animal consciousness, which I find problematic, rather than the
cosmos/animal consciousness arise together in tandem, are intertwined and
mutually co-creative.  Which I prefer.

My take on all the rest of this, you've heard before.  That Quality doesn't
create the cosmos any more than gravity creates mass.

Oh.  Wait a minute.  Gravity does create mass.  Without gravity, there'd be
no mass.  Without Quality, there'd be no cosmos.

Get it?

An ineffable force that pulls things toward betterness as empirically
evident as gravity playing the stars.




> 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.
>
>

John}

Oops/AHA/ahhhh....I like it.  Good one Arlo.  I see you have a bit of poetry
about your soul, you  atheistically evil acerdemic you.

Ahhh...  equals peace of mind - which becomes a statically held latchpoint.

AHA equals enlightenment of the moment, in the struggle to reconcile
conflict.

Oops equals not only accident, but error and conflict.

The dialectical process proceeds exactly like that.  Eventually any oops
will become an ahhh... and any ahhh... will one day turn into "oops!"

What drives this rotation?  Not gravity, Arlo.  Quality.


> [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.
>
>
[John]

I started a new thread on this issue of philosophy and religion, which I
haven't posted quite yet, but in short I think that it is important to keep
religion and philosophy separate.  If that's Arlo's main beef, then I concur
with him.  You can't enquire into values when all your values are controlled
by religious conceptions of a priesthood of some kind.

Conversely though, to assume that your philosophy obviates any possibility
of a God, is equally a religious taint upon free enquiry.   A philosophy
that has value is one that helps you select between religious stances based
upon sound reasoning.  A philosophy that despises all religious thinking at
the outset because of valuistic reasons is completely out of step with the
mass of mankind from the start.  And too statically dogmatic for MY taste
for sure.

I like dwelling in a cosmos where its an open question.  where it's not
conclusively demonostrable one way or the other, but the open possibility is
always before me that magical forces of good, spirits, angels, deities just
possibly *might* be lurking around the corner, interacting with me at odd
moments outside of my capture or control.

it's fun.