[MD] Quality and the Higgs Field: An Analogy

[118]

On Wed, Feb 2, 2011 at 11:07 PM, Ham Priday <hampday1 at verizon.net> wrote:
> Hey, Mark --
>
> 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.

[Mark]
I would contend that this is not the right forum, since it distracts
the particular into the general.  However, I will concede that this
forum can encompass the quest for God.  I will say that this thread
should not be hijacked by such a thing.  This is of course my personal
opinion.  We could start of thread on: "Is Quality God?"  That could
be interesting.  My intention for this thread was to draw a parallel
between a concept in physics and Quality.  But, of course, the best
intentions...
>
[Mark, SNIP]
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.

[Ham]>
> 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.

[Mark]
Yes, exactly.  Man "senses" things and them humanizes them and creates
the word "quality" or "moral".  My premise is that he is sensing
things which already exist, and that he cannot create.  Even the sense
of perfection is man-made, we could say that each moment in the
universe is perfect as it unfolds.

I understand that you equate Value of Essence with Being.  I do not
have a problem with that.  I would simply state that Essence is
Quality.  We value Quality in our own way.  Your Essence is my
Quality.  That Value is a matter of attitude, nothing else.  If we
have an attitude concerning a painting, we can give it Value.  If
there is no attitude, no value is assigned.  We can change an attitude
to give a painting less or more value.  The painting does not change,
our attitude does.  Perhaps I am using the term attitude in a more
encompassing way than you.  I will try to think of another word.  I
have used the word Intent in the past.  In a way, this underlies
attitude.
>
[Ham in response to Mark's snipped question]>
> 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.

[Mark]
Indeed, Quality is not metered out, Quality is the Source.  Why do you
need to create a Source separate from Quality?  A balanced universe
contains Quality which we interpret as good or evil.  If we are
measuring something, it has to exist, we cannot create it.  Thus
Quality exists outside our measurements.  The Absolute Source is
Quality.  I am not rejecting a primary source, I am defining it as
Quality.  Does this get me off the nihilist hook?
>
[Ham]>
> 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.

[Mark]
By my analysis, then, I would say that free choice is dictated by
Quality.  I think this fits, although I will have to wait for
questions to prove it.  There is nothing without Quality, it is the
primary source.  We sense it all the time.  We do not have to create a
theoretical primary source outside our senses.  It is unnecessary.
>
[Ham]>
> 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.

[Mark]
Here again you create a dichotomy where none is necessary.  You
separate Essence from Being, when they can be one.  And, no, I do not
subscribe to a "human like" God.  That is just a small part of it.
But our interpretation must have human qualities, can't get around
that.  We could say that a hurricane is punishing us, it has all the
qualities of being a punisher.  But we do not need to ascribe the
human equivalent of punishment.  Punishment becomes more of a cosmic
construct.
>
> 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."

[Mark]
I like the quote, thanks.  Similar to Kierkegaard's standing alone in
front of God, and joining him.  Once we realize that we are Quality,
we become part of, and not sit in judgement of.  Your beingness seems
to always be in judgement of.  There is a distinct "separation from"
which is not a unifying metaphysics.  However, it is hard to get away
from this estrangement with your ontology since it is based on
separation from.
>
With regards,
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
>