[MD] Intellect? Never.

[Jon Bennett]

Ham,

I see it the other way around, values presuppose purpose, intention, and
consciousness, a mind, a Creator.

And when it comes down to it, is seems that moq gives to quality many of the
basic, at least primary attributes of divinity. Q is said to be
self-existent, the creator. The cause of all that is that has no cause. Q is
claimed to be the great I AM. As God spoke to Moses, I AM that which IS, the
Great first cause of all which can't be named-the self-existent one.

Jon


On Sat, Apr 24, 2010 at 3:48 AM, Ham Priday <hampday1 at verizon.net> wrote:

> Greetings, Platt --
>
>
> Your clear and concise explanation of the major MoQ principles is a
> significant accomplishment.  Although the finer points of your
> interpretation undoubtedly will be challenged by the academicians here, from
> what I've read of Pirsig's thesis your description of the fundamentals is
> consistent with the spirit and ontology of the author's philosophy.
>
> Not to criticize this synopsis, but by way of alerting you to some
> weaknesses in the thesis that are reflected in your outline, I'd like to
> comment briefly on what I see as problematic assertions.  These will come as
> no surprise to you, knowing the differences in my ontological perspective.
> But I think they underscore points of controversy that may confound
> newcomers like Jon and are almost certain to elicit critical responses from
> the elders of this forum.
>
>
> Principles of the Metaphysics of Quality
>>
>> The Quality Principle. Quality is simultaneously an immanent and
>> transcendent moral force. It created and gave purpose to our world,
>> motivated by the ethical principle of the "Good" which is its essence.
>> Quality is synonymous with "morality" and "value." Thus, the world
>> is primarily a moral order, consisting not of subjects (mental things)
>> and objects (material things) but patterns of value.
>>
>
> Because it is posited as Reality itself, Quality defined as a "principle"
> is a form of casuistry.  It forces you to accept Quality as both the Creator
> and the "created", as the essence of goodness and the "moral order" that
> ensues.  This leads to two questions: If the "Good" is the essence, what is
> the need for a principle to "motivate" it?  Also, your phrase "primarily a
> moral order" seems equivocal.  If moral goodness is primary, why is the
> world (of value patterns) not ABSOLUTELY good?
>
>
> The Awareness Principle. The essence of quality is known to us as
>> awareness without content - pure, unpatterned experience. As such,
>> it's impossible to describe. Whenever we try, we end up describing
>> what we are aware of, not awareness itself.
>>
>
> Epistemologically we cannot "know" something without content, and
> experience (the world of appearances) is the content of awareness.  Thus,
> not only is the essence of quality "impossible to describe", it is
> impossible to be aware of.
>
>
> The Dynamic/Static Principle. To explain the inexplicable, the Metaphysics
>> of Quality divides quality into two parts, Dynamic and Static.  Dynamic
>> Quality is the moral imperative to create; Static Quality is the moral
>> imperative
>> to survive.
>>
>
> This distinction, and the conclusions you have drawn, appear to be
> arbitrary.  The need to survive is instinctual, rather than a "moral
> imperative", as is the need to procreate.  I don't see any substantiation
> for an "imperative to create", nor (except for Pirsig's special concept of
> "morality") is either survival or creation generally regarded as a moral
> issue.  Also, since the act or exercise of creation and doing what is
> necessary to survive are both processes in time, I don't know how Pirsig
> justifies the premise that survival is a static principle.
>
>
> The Levels Principle.  Quality became manifest in our world by an
>> evolutionary sequence of Dynamic Quality Events. Left in the wake of
>> these events were four static levels of evolution - inorganic, biological,
>> social and intellectual.  Each level is a static pattern of Quality,
>> organized
>> and governed by its own unique moral laws - the laws of physics, biology,
>> culture and reason respectively.
>>
>
> This, of course, assumes that the creation of existence ("our world") is a
> series of historical events in time, and that the categories cited were
> differentiated or defined prior to the arrival of a conscious agent to
> distinguish them.  Inasmuch as the four levels are processes (i.e.,
> "actions") of evolution -- how could they not be?  -- what is it that makes
> them "static" as opposed to evolution which only names the overall process?
>
> I'll skip the Hierarchy and Dominance Principles because they are unique to
> the MoQ and require a doctrinal acceptance of Pirsig's theories as
> "authoritative.  As a personal note, I believe in the dependency of all life
> forms on Nature and "being" (otherness), but I don't view it as a struggle
> for dominance by superior or inferior levels.  Likewise, while Truth may be
> an "intellectual pattern", there is no basis for calling it "a species of
> Good."  Pragmatists, for example, would regard "what works" as a principle
> of Truth; the only "goodness" about it being that it solves a problem for
> which a solution was wanted.
>
> For Quality to "strive for freedom from static patterns" strikes me as
> contradictory, since Quality is described as creating those patterns, and
> would therefore have primary control over them.  Regarding the Individual
> Principle, you say, "responses to and evaluations of Quality vary by
> individual because each has a different static pattern of life history."
> True, but isn't this another way of saying that existence (i.e., the
> life-experience) is unique for each individual?
>
> I especially like the way you developed the Proof Principle.  It
> establishes two concepts which are not apparent in the other principles.
>  "People" are the "deniers" and "affirmers" of morality and value.  (For me
> this bears out Protagoras' axiom, 'Man is the measure of all things'.)  And,
> life's purpose is ultimately derived from the values we choose.
>
>
> The Proof Principle. That reality is morality strikes most people as loony.
>> But in denying that the world is a moral order they have to employ moral
>> judgment. They cannot refute that Quality is reality without asserting a
>> value.
>> And they will have to concede that it´s impossible to live without
>> assumptions
>> of what is Good. For life requires action, action presupposes choice,
>> choice
>> presupposes purpose and purpose presupposes values.
>>
>
> Fine work, as always, Platt.  It will be interesting to see which
> principles are contested by the other participants.
>
> Best regards,
> Ham
>
>
>
> Moq_Discuss mailing list
> Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
> Archives:
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
> http://moq.org/md/archives.html
>