[MD] The MOQ difference

[Ham Priday]

Greetings Mark --

I see you have a new handle.  Where have you been keeping yourself?  (I miss 
your insightful queries.)


> I find it interesting how you use the metaphysics of physics
> to support a metaphysics of Quality.  One metaphysics supporting
> another.  Perhaps, as you say, they are both pointing towards
> some Truth.  More than likely, they are both pointing the other
> way to an ultimate source.  Both arise from the same place,
> so it is no coincidence that you find justification for "non-physically
> provable ontologies in the physical sciences.

Generally I don't use physics to support metaphysics, nor is it good 
practice.  The Quantum Enigma seems to be on everyone's mind right now, and 
with it the idea that Truth is ambiguous; so I thought someone should assign 
Science and Philosophy to their proper truth-seeking roles.  It is true, 
however, that we are all trying to solve an enigma that is beyond our 
finitely-limited range of experience.

> As you know, I have had a hard time with the evolutionary aspect
> of Quality as it has been described.  Particularly since evolution
> describes adaptation towards an environment.  What would the
> environment governing the evolution of Quality be?  So, it is important
> to move away from the physical concepts governing evolution
> as these are only dead ends.  If indeed Quality governs evolution,
> then we can talk metaphysics.
>
> Your subjective sense of Quality as Value minimizes the concept.
> Yes, Value is one aspect, but not all of it.  We have had discussions
> on your negation of Essence, and while it is an attractive concept
> (in an ineffable way), it does imply duality.  My question would be,
> What is the source of that duality?  How is it that the subjective splits
> from the objective?  Your physical support in terms of us being part
> of the equation we are describing is clear but circular.

Mark, I too have wrestled with the Quality concept, as quality (like all 
relative judgments) requires the sensibility of an observer.  To the degree 
that evolution generates species better fitted to their environment, I 
suppose one can say, euphemistically, that it is "governed by quality". 
(For human beings, at least, the results are salutary.)   But if evolution 
is a directed process with a "final goal", the proper term is Teleology. 
And teleology implies a Designer whose unknown objective is part of the 
enigma.

> As I have posted before, such metaphysical concepts
> are encapsulated in the notion of State Vector Collapse,
> where  probability is made "real". ...
> but suffice it to say that (in my opinion) duality only exists
> in the form of social communication.  Without that mirror
> of other, no duality exists.  Like you say, it is impossible
> to avoid SOM in discussion, but that does not mean
> that it is thus the only alternative.

I strikes me as strange when people define the sense of otherness as a 
"social" function.  To me this is a Pirsigian concept intended to circumvent 
subjects and objects.  Surely most of our experience deals with otherness, 
whether it's communication, manipulation, ingestion, exploration, 
construction, or just plain thinking.  When Descartes developed his Cogito, 
he was incommunicado, isolated from every external perception and belief, 
focusing only on pure thought.  It was enough to convince him that he 
existed, he was the knowing subject, and the existence of everything 
else--the 'content' of experience--was in doubt.

> The phrase "observation creates reality" is a little nonsensical
> unless one is trying to convey an image.  We could say that
> nothing exists without observation, but how would we know?
> One could just as easily say that "reality creates observation".
> If what you are saying is that no reality existed before your
> observation of it, then history itself has no meaning.

It is important to distinguish between "reality" and "existence", Mark. 
What we create via experience are images or patterns of being that represent 
the values on which we are focussed.  In totality these patterns constitute 
"our reality" as existents, or simply Existence.  But what we experience as 
reality is relational, transitory, and therefore illusory.
We have no direct knowledge of primary or ultimate Reality, nor any reason 
to deduce that it is divided, evolutionary, or "created".

> I noticed you qualified your statement (#2) by relating
> Value to empirical reality.  Here you seem to be providing
> a definition by self referencing empiricism.  There is honestly
> no equation in that statement that provides any further
> insight into a metaphysical notion.  Yes, empiricism is defined
> as subjective, but for that you do not need to capitalize
> the V in value.

I capitalize the 'V' in value for the same reason that Pirsig capitalizes 
the 'Q' in quality.  Value is a realized aspect of Essence, not Reality 
itself.  Even in the empirical world, Value is essential, although we only 
experience it differentially.

I would enjoy discussing Essentialism further, Mark, but am not sure where 
this is leading.  Since we're restricted to keeping these dialogues within 
the province of the MoQ, I suggest that you frame your questions so that 
they address MoQ-related issues specifically.

Nice to hear from you again, Mark.

Best regards,
Ham