[MD] Thus spoke Lila

[118]

Hi Ham,
Maybe I am Horse, maybe not.  But I would like to answer you question
(to Horse (me?) and suggest something that may appeal to you.

Quality is Reality as we experience it.  This would put it into your
differentiation category.  There is plenty of Reality which we do not
experience, but if it were would be Quality.  This would put Reality
into your Absolute category.

The only difference with your ontology is that we create Quality (or
Value) rather than experience it.  I am in the Experience Camp, at
least today.  If I knew everything already then I wouldn't subscribe
to this forum.

Horses statement (cut) sounds more like a paradox to refute an
argument.  This was popular amongst the Sophists so he is certainly in
character for MOQ.  However, by saying something is undefinable one is
defining it as a category of thing.  We have the definable on one
side, and the ineffable on the other.

For me, to say it is undefinable, means that we haven't tried hard
enough yet.  We make up Quality, and then can't define it (yet).  So
here is where approximation comes into effect with the use of
analogies.  No analogy will be perfect, several are better than one,
and analogies can contradict other analogies.  There is no problem
with contradiction, since we are working outside the standard methods
of logic.  We have to.  Logic has a beginning, and expands from that.
What happens if the beginning cannot be encompassed by Truth?  Well
that is where MOQ is.  Buddhism has plenty of analogies.

Everything in our creation has to start with an assumption.  You have
made one with Absolute Essence.  I think that is great.  The point of
a metaphysics is, what can it do for us?  If your Essence provides
great meaning for you, you have accomplished your goal.  If others
join you, even better since there is company in numbers.  To try to
pin one ontology down as more correct is a personal experience.

Cheers,
Mark

On Tue, Dec 7, 2010 at 10:47 PM, Ham Priday <hampday1 at verizon.net> wrote:
>
[snop]
> I agree that the name of an intellectual pursuit is not the same identity as
> the body of knowledge it refers to, just as the title of a novel is not the
> same as the story recounted in the book.  However, your response to Marsha
> leaves Pirsig's "equivalency postulate" hanging in limbo.  Not to exacerbate
> this issue, but by way of clarifying it, let me paraphrase your argument
> with a similar one drawn from the objective sciences.
>
> Cosmology is a science which defines Reality as the Cosmos.  The MoQ is a
> metaphysics which equates Reality to Quality.  So if Reality = Quality, does
> it also equal the Cosmos?  Or are the cosmologists mistaken?
>
> Equivalence means: 1) equal or interchangeable in value, quantity,
> significance, etc.; 2) having the same or a similar effect or meaning.  By
> these criteria, I submit that equating something called X with something
> called Y is "defining" it.
>
> Two questions:
> If you do not accept equivalency as definitive, by what logic does Mr. Prsig
> equate two indefinable things?
> And, if metaphysics is definable, how can the equation Reality = Quality be
> a metaphysical postulate?

[Mark]
If this bothers you, we can say that xQuality = yReality.  x and y are
variables or operators.  Does this work for you?

Metaphysics is definable by the indefinable.
>
> The truth of the matter is that what is not experiencable to human beings is
> indefinable.  Therefore, attempts to define ultimate Reality as a
> qualitative abstraction, such as Being, Consciousness, Energy, Value, or
> Goodness are no more valid than equating it to a known physical entity.
> Nicholas of Cusa in the 15th century came up with the principle of the
> 'Not-other', which is arguably the best working definition possible for
> metaphysical reality.

[Mark]
Yes, metaphysics is a creation, not other.  Ultimate reality is the
same thing.  Quality gives rise to your qualitative abstractions, and
it has meaning in putting Quality above Truth.
>
Cheers,
Mark

> 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
>