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

[Ham Priday]

Craig --



> Some parts of the universe--like bridges or paintings--would not exist
> in the "absence of sensible agents". But on closer inspection they are 
> made
> of metal & oil which not only predate humans but all life forms on earth.
> Pirsig's insight was that the universe that is not directly observed could
> consist of quarks, strings or m-branes; have electrons with circular 
> orbits
> or shells; have 4 or 17 dimensions--in short, whatever works.
> But from the fact that we create the STRUCTURE of the universe that
> best explains it, it doesn't follow that we create the universe itself or
> that it wouldn't exist without us.

To me the "structure" of the universe is the same as its perceived 
attributes and properties.  I see no difference between "bridges or 
paintings" and mountains or trees as physical objects.  Just because humans 
build bridges and Nature builds mountains doesn't change the nature of 
objects.  Pirsig's "insight" that quarks, strings, or "whatever works" 
constitute a "non-observable universe" is, in my opinion, a holdover from 
materialism.  Why equivocate?  Either he believes experience creates the 
universe or he doesn't.  I happen to believe it does.  To speculate that 
quantum particles are exceptions simply because they are too small to 
"directly observe" is a specious argument that defeats the very theory he's 
positing.

Like Bodvar, you view space/time as the inviolable habitat of substantive 
entities.  That's dialectical materialism, no matter how you disguise it.  I 
maintain that existence itself (including time and space) is the mode of 
human experience, that we construct this phenomenal system from our own 
value-sensibility, and thus "create" our own reality.  Is that ontogeny too 
bizarre for Pirsigians?  If Donald Hoffman, a cognitive scientist at UCLA, 
could express his belief that Consciousness is the fundamental reality, how 
extreme is the position that Value is the essence of existence?  Pirsig had 
the opportunity to posit Quality as the primary source, thus affording a 
metaphysical foundation for his thesis.  He chose Experience instead in 
deference to the positivists.  As a consequence, MOQists must adapt to the 
notion that experience is indigenous to inanimate objects like rocks and 
atoms

I understand your reasoning and appreciate your response, Craig.  I just 
don't subscribe to the sanctity of objective reality.

Best regards,
Ham

/