[MD] The relativity of the MoQ

[Ham Priday]

Andre, Ron, Platt, Marsha, and All --



Marsha asked:
> Can you supply an Intellectual static pattern of value
> that is not subject/object oriented???

 Ron countered:
> Can you produce one that does?

I can.  But before producing it, I must say I'm disappointed with the 
responses posted to date on this important philosophical topic.  When Andre 
initiated this thread back on August 24th, he posed the question: "To what 
extent can the MoQ be said to be a 'universal' metaphysics?"  I've seen no 
conclusive answer offered to this question.

Ron equivocated with this response, inviting Platt into the discussion:
> I do believe that the MoQ does provide a contextual framework
> for the human experience which promotes an understanding of
> relationships that do not draw apon cultural terms of agreement
> but a much larger context of four static patterns of Quality which
> may be applied to and in, any cultural context.

Platt addressed Andre's question "IS a culture that values intellectual 
quality vs. one that does not, truly superior even if that cultures 
intellectual level destroys and undercuts it's social level?" with a Pirsig 
quote: "When the intellectuals in control of society take biology's side 
against society then society is caught in a cross fire from which it has no 
protection."  From then on, the discussion disintegrated into an argument 
over social polemics.

On 9/2 Marsha made an effort to redirect the discussion back to the original 
question:
> For the moment, I'm wondering if the problem is not rooted
> in the self/object duality.  While the subjective vales are allegedly
> missing in the Intellectual Level, what of the illusionary self?  This
> 'self' is what Buddhism so adequately addresses, and is the most
> difficult for the West to consider, imho. The quality event creates
> both self and object even if it is within an intellectual patterned
> event. The self becomes an existing abstract 'thinking being' that
> is manipulated with the rest of the patterns. Do you think it would
> be worth giving a little thought to 'self' versus 'subjective values'?

Platt then returned to Andre's mention of an "improved harmonious One":
> As I understand it, the mystical conclusion that "All is One"
> is the same as Pirsig's "pre-intellectual experience," namely
> that ultimate reality is not divided or differentiated in any way.
> However, we (and all living creatures) cannot survive without
> dividing reality into life/death, good/bad, friend/enemy, etc.

I'm not sure if this qualifies the MoQ as a "universal metaphysics", but 
Platt's statement is undeniably true.  What is also undeniable, but missed 
in the dialectics, is that the split between "ultimate reality" and 
"experienced reality" is absolute.  That is, we cannot transport ourselves 
from an objective, relational world to metaphysical 'Oneness' by intellect, 
faith, or some mystic Sutra.  The division is existentially insurmountable. 
So that what we do in our "culture" or politics has no bearing on ultimate 
reality.  (Sorry Platt and Andre.)

Since subject/object duality is considered "illusory" by Pirsigians, let me 
break "relativity" down into even simpler terms.  The human individual does 
not possess reality: the reality that we experience is "other" to us.  We 
live and participate in a world of inorganic, biological, and sociological 
"beingness" that is external to us, and we call ourselves "human" beings. 
But the being of existence is not what we really are.  What we are is the 
"awareness" of Being punctuated (differentiated) by nothingness.  We do not 
experience Nothingness; it has no value to us.  Yet, there's no escaping it. 
Every finite thing is defined by nothingness; every change or difference 
experienced in time and space -- whether it's the cycle of seasons, day 
turning into night, the evolution of a species, love vs. hate, harmony vs. 
chaos, war vs. peace  -- is a transitional or relational condition involving 
nothingness.

Pure awareness removed of its content is nothingness, and were it not for 
sensibility there would be no content.  Now here's where Value (Quality?) 
comes in.  Value is an absolute identified with the Ultimate One in just 
about every transcendental religion, philosophy, or mystical concept you can 
name -- including Pirsig's MoQ.  Metaphysically Value is indivisible, 
contains no nothingness, and is inextricably one with ultimate reality 
(Essence).

I maintain that existence is relational because of the nothingness that 
divides it.  Physicists tell us that "Nature abhors a vacuum," so 
nothingness is not intrinsic to physical reality.  And it certainly isn't "a 
hole in Essence."  The fact that nothingness is primary to difference in 
cognitive awareness logically infers that it originates with the 
experiencing self.  By that, I mean that each individual "injects" its own 
nothingness into its objective "other", thereby bringing Value into being as 
a relativistic world.

Does this mean that the MoQ is a universal metaphysics?  No, it means that 
there are two "realities".  Objective reality (existence) is the universal 
(non-metaphysical) reality of subjective experience.  It's the reality in 
which we create a finite, relational world from Value.  Metaphysical reality 
is the primary, absolute, and immutable source from which all difference is 
negated.  Only when this negate that you and I call our subjective "self" 
surrenders absolutely to its estranged value is the gap of nothingness 
closed and essential Oneness realized.

In the metaphysical sense, Relativity and Unity are contradictory modes of 
one Absolute Reality which knows no contrariety.  It just so happens that 
our concern in this life is with the value of otherness.  If ever we can 
understand that Value, not Otherness, is our reality, we shall have taken a 
giant step forward in philosophical thinking.

In my opinion, (although it wasn't asked for).

Essentially yours,
Ham