[MD] Quality and the Higgs Field: An Analogy

[Ham Priday]

Hey, Mark --


[Ham previously]:
> There is no question that followers of Judeo-Christianity believe
> God is their uncreated source. The question I have for the MoQists
> is: Is Quality your God? I ask this because, epistemologically,
> there can be no quality without a conscious agent. Which means
> that Pirsig's Quality cannot be the primary source, hence cannot
> be man's creator.

[Mark]:
> Wow Ham, this is a loaded question.  This could hijack the
> conversation into who knows what, perhaps our definition of an
> undefinable.  Now, you do ask for a personal understanding of God.
> This could be that God is Cheese, which would be a valid answer
> since it is personal.  If you are asking for a religion, then this is not
> the right forum for that.

Why is this not an appropriate question for a philosophy forum?  We see 
discussions of physics, art, music, politics, Buddhism, and intellectualism 
on the MD.  Philosophy is the search for an understanding of reality and its 
meaning through a study of fundamental beliefs.  Of course one's belief in a 
creator is "personal"; but if beliefs are not fundamental to this search, I 
don't know what is.  If Pirsig's Quality thesis is not a statement of his 
personal belief, then we are all deceived.  Frankly, I think this is the 
perfect forum in which to discuss the reality of God.

> I would ask the question in another way (which does not have much
> meaning either).  Does your God provide Quality, or does man create
> it on his own?  This of course puts man at odds with your God,
> and stands alone.  Epistemologically, there can be no conscious agent
> without Quality.  Each nerve is qualitatively different, thus providing
> for a spectrum of conscious appreciation.  Behind such appreciation
> is an awareness which could also be termed the conscious agent.
> But such an agent cannot control the workings of the brain, only an
> attitude towards such workings.  If we believe that all is some form
> of Good, then who can say that it is not?

We've covered this ground before, Mark, and I'm disappointed that it didn't 
"have much meaning" for you.  Man is fundamentally the unit of sensibility 
in existence.  He senses evil and injustice and calls it "immoral".  He 
senses virtue and goodness and calls it "quality".  He seeks perfection, but 
his sensibility is limited to values in a balance where he is the fulcrum 
and the range is finite.  Yet, man's role as the value agent is far more 
than an "attitudinal" response, for he brings the Value of Essence into 
existence as Being.

> I still do not understand where you get nihilism.  Quality is the
> antithesis of nihilism.  It is a primary source, there is no rejection
> of such.  It is not nothingness, we experience it everyday.
> When you state that man determines what is Good, I have no
> problem with that since it is man's interpretation.  For us to
> determine what is Good, Good must already exist.  We cannot
> create Good, only identify it.  Take away one "O" and we are
> left with God.  So, God encompasses Good.  Of course the
> extra "O" leaves room for evil.

Quality [Value] isn't metered out to us from the Source like a pump at the 
gas station.  A "balanced universe" encompasses both evil and good, 
abominable to excellent, in a range of values.  Only a sensible agent can 
position its self at the center of this range and measure its value.  I 
submit that this is what we all strive to do as free agents in an amoral 
universe.  The Supreme Value, of course, is the Absolute Source which gives 
it all meaning.  If you reject the primary source, I'm sorry but you are a 
nihilist in my book.

> Again I will have to ask you, where does this power of choice
> come from, on a physical basis?  Do we control how each
> nerve fires?  Do we do this intellectually?  I sure do not spend
> much time doing that.

The power of free choice "comes from" the same Source as the Value we 
measure differentially.  Potentiality, Value and Sensibility are all One in 
Essence.  Everything we are or experience--including the "intelligent 
design" of function and form--is derived from this primary source.  There is 
nothing without it.  Metaphysical reality preempts the "physical basis" you 
insist on, which is an intellectual construct of function and form in 
process.

> Your metaphysical issue is what is God?  That could take a while.
> I would say that using Meister Eckhart's mystical definition of God,
> my metaphysical description of Quality would be very similar.  So
> in this sense, Quality can be considered God.  Let me ask you,
> is the Absolute Source God?  If not, where does your God fit in?

Most certainly Essence is the metaphysical equivalent of God.  Moreover, it 
is a 'god' minus the conditions or limitations of finite beingness, the 
anthromorphic wrath and need to punish "sinners", or the baggage of 
scriptural dogma.  Essence is the source of everything we desire or aspire 
to, because it represents the Value from which we are estranged as finite 
agents.  By virtue of our sensibility and experience, we "seize" this value 
for ourselves, and in so doing reclaim our place in the Oneness of the 
Source.

As Eckhart so eloquently put it when speaking of the soul: "... when, for 
God's sake, it becomes unself-conscious and lets go of everything, it finds 
itself again in God; for knowing God, it therefore knows itself and 
everything else from which it has been cut asunder, in the divine 
perfection."

Respectfully,
Ham