[MD] Intellect's Symposium

[Ham Priday]

Hey, Bo (Mark quoted) --


Since Mark has lent me his endorsement--"Ham adds to the discussion"--I've 
summoned up my courage to address your recent interchange.

Mark said:
> For the record, Magnus was referring to little old me (I think).
> I have tried to set Magnus straight. And, for the record, Quality
> is fixed, it's expression in terms of evolution is not. Do not confuse
> the two. If Quality is reality, then you are saying that Reality is
> not fixed. Even if Reality is everchanging, that does not mean that
> it is not Reality. We are talking about absolutes here. Even an
> ever-changing perception can be absolute in its change. That horses
> run can be absolute even if they all run at different speeds, or if
> some only run in their dreams. Perhaps not a good example, but
> hopefully you know what I mean.

Bodvar replied:
> I had given you up as a wordmonger (as the tribe elder I can say such
> things :-) but this struck me a pure gold.  So many speak about the
> MOQ as "dynamic" revealing that they don't understand. The MOQ is
> the Dynamic/Static Universe and I applaud everything you say to
> demonstrate this point. An even worse misunderstanding is the
> Quality/MOQ one, but I won't start on that just wonder if you have any
> comments on that issue Mark or if I - again -will have to dismiss you ;-)

I don't know what Mark's feud with Magnus is about, but here are the issues 
he has raised, as I see them, Bo . . .

"Quality is fixed, it's expression in terms of evolution is not."
Although I don't believe Quality is Reality, I can accept this logic, 
provided that what Mark means by "expression" is "experience".  If something 
"expresses" itself it is revealing or manifesting its existence to an 
observer.  What is its appearance to an observer but "experience"?  And, 
inasmuch as human experience is limited to time/space perception, it seems 
plausible that a constant is experienced incrementally as an evolutionary 
phenomenon.

"Even if Reality is everchanging, that does not mean that it is not 
Reality."
That all depends on what we mean by Reality.  If Reality is the physical 
universe and its components (again, "as experienced") it is most certainly 
an evolutionary system.  On the other hand, if we're talking about Ultimate 
Reality (the Primary Source of all appearances), then there is no logical 
justification for imputing a condition like "evolutionary" to it.

"Even an ever-changing perception can be absolute in its change."
This assertion is somewhat problematic.  A change can be a constant (I think 
physicists refer to it as 'delta') if said change is non-variable, such as a 
steady increase at a fixed rate over time.  However, there is no empirical 
support for "constancy" in the evolutionary process that I'm aware of. 
Also, evolution is only one aspect of Reality.  One can't simply isolate 
"change" and equate it to reality.  It overlooks the myriad functions and 
principles of the universe -- physical, chemical, biological, 
electro-magnetic, conscious, etc.

In my metaphysical vernacular, Absolute is One all-encompassing Reality from 
which difference, multiplicity, and process are derived appearances.

Thanks for allowing me to chime in.

Best regards,
Ham

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

> For the record, imo, Ham adds to the discussion. I do not see it as
> arrogance, just opinion. And, we all have those.
>
> And if you like Magnus feels that he should protect the innocent of
> supposedly wrong interpretations, that is arrogant and condescending
> indeed. Go save a whale!
>
> Mark
>
> Ham said:
> Ham is referring to Pirsig's postulate that Quality equals Reality.
> This is inconsistent with his pronouncement that "experience is the
> cutting edge of reality." If Quality is fixed as a constant of the
> universe, it cannnot be modified or actualized by experience, for
> experience is relative to the subject 'I'. In short, experience serves
> no purpose in Pirsig's cosmology.