[MD] Quality and the Higgs Field: An Analogy

[118]

Hi Ham,

I do not believe you interpretation of my view is quite correct.  I
provide some more verbiage below.

On Sat, Feb 5, 2011 at 10:34 AM, Ham Priday <hampday1 at verizon.net> wrote:
>
> Mark and John (points to ponder) --
>
> I realize you are both persuaded that Quality is an independent moral agency
> that rules the universe and our perception of it, obviating the need for a
> creator as well as a free agent.  Morality and Conscious are "Natural", Mark
> insists, the consequence of "Quality in action", while John has concluded
> that "the universe obviously produces life, so it must be intrinsically
> moral."  Need I point out that a rainstorm produces water needed for man's
> survival, so by John's standard, it must be moral, too!

[Mark]
Quality is not an independent agent.  There is no obviation of a
creator, Quality is the the creator.  You seems to be stuck on a
separation of man from nature.  What we term moral is the equivalent
of a rainstorm.  We cannot separate ourselves from it.  It is all the
same thing.  I could say that Quality is Tao (as an analogy).  It is
the source of all.  We as humans happen to call it Quality (my view of
course).
>
> Since MoQ's author refuses to define Quality, other than to equate it with
> Value, I offer my own definition: Value is man's affinity for that which is
> greater than himself.  Desire and attraction represent the affirmative
> aspect of the Self/Other dichotomy that resists negation.

[Mark]
MoQ is a discussion of a metaphysics based on Quality.  As such, it
provides analogies instead of definitions.  This is similar to not
being able to define God, but simply give our appreciation of such.
There is nothing unusual about this.  By defining something you have
to leave something out.  Any definition of Quality is also part of
Quality, so you can see the endless regress or expansion there.  Your
definition of Value is good; it implies action.  Without a qualitative
difference between less than or greater than, Value does not exist.
Value in this way is brought into existence by Quality.
>
> Affinity is an "attractive force" that causes substances or entitites to be
> drawn to each other.  Now, an attractive force doesn't "create" anything; it
> only fosters the kind of co-dependency that Mark has described in reference
> to the division of self and other.  The power to attract is not intrinsic to
> the entitites affected; so a magnetic field, for example, requires a source
> of power, whether it's the alignment of electrons that polarizes an iron rod
> or an external generator.
>
> What do you propose as the source of Quality?  Is Quality [Value]
> self-created, uncreated, or a figment of man's imagination?

[Mark]
I would have to say, again, that Quality is the source.  I am not
trying to be oblique or tricky here.  At some point, we cannot bring
up the chicken and egg analogy when it has no meaning.  You provide
Absolute essence as such a thing.  I do not believe that Essence is
necessary since Quality fits the bill.  Quality as we express or sense
it could be considered a "figment" of our brains.  But we are
expressing a natural tendency that exists, and such a figment is just
a real as anything else.  We could ask what created the forces in
physics.  Many physicists believe that existed even before they
manifested.  Abstract thought could be considered uncreated.  In terms
of the use of Attractive Force, Quality could certainly be seen as
providing that.  In this way, Quality provides direction.  Such
direction may be different for each individual.
>
> You see, I'm looking for a primary source here, and I don't find it in your
> atheistic  ontology.  Neither of you wants to talk about God, because
> "Wow...that's 'personal'!" But by making the claim that "everything is
> natural", you seem to be denying the need
> for a metaphysical source.  How does that differ from the objectivist's
> ("logical positivist"'s) worldview that Pirsig disparages?

[Mark]
That is not quite correct.  I answered you question about God in a
post.  I alluded to Eckhart's sense of God as being similar to my
sense of Quality.  I am not sure if your use of atheistic ontology is
quite correct.  My view may not match a specific dogmatic religion,
but I wouldn't call it atheistic.  I can't speak to your question
concerning objectivism since I do not quite understand it.  By
everything being natural, I mean't that we cannot separate ourselves
from the world at large.  We cannot create Quality as something new.
In the same way we cannot say that we are intelligent and nothing is
as intelligent as us.  This just doesn't make sense since our
intelligence is just a form of a much larger intelligence, it didn't
just pop out of nowhere (as above, so below).  Now don't confuse this
with intelligent design, that is another subject altogether.

Ham, I wanted to digress here a bit, since it seems that I have not
explained Quality as separation in an understandable way to you.  I
will present two analogies to see if this helps.

The first analogy is the stock market.  To make the market useful, one
desires to buy low and sell high.  The money is made in the separation
of the low from the high.  Therefore, it does not matter what the
absolute prices of the stock are, what separates them is important.  A
trader does not look at the absolute prices, but at the differences
between the purchase and possible sale prices.  The trader looks at
the Quality of the trade.  In the same way, when we make choices
between apples, we do not look at the apples themselves, but at the
difference (Quality) between them.  It is this separation we look at.

The second deals with a hypothetical line in the universe.  Let's say
that this line embodies Quality in a progressive way from low to high.
 If we take a single point on this line, we have no way of knowing
what the Quality is since the line is infinite in both directions.  We
can only know Quality by referencing that point to another point on
the line.  In this way, things cannot contain Quality or Value.  Such
a thing can only be realized (to use your words) by focussing on the
separation.

So, I am not saying that Quality is what is between atoms or houses in
order for them to be separated.  I would say, however, that at any
level, be it the molecular or astronomical, it is possible to see
Quality as separating one thing from another.  In our simplistic
realization of the world, we may not immediately see a qualitative
difference between apples and oranges.  However, if we spend enough
time on such a thing, we find that one is of higher quality than
another at a particular time (if we need to choose, that is).  So,
Quality is not static, it is not physical, and it is not embodied by
things, it is what separates them.  Quality is realized in the moment.
 While memory can sometimes bring out Quality, it can be fickle.
>
Again, I have no problem talking about creators or Gods, I do it all
the time with friends of mine.  I often find it mind expanding.  I
just didn't want to complicate the thread.  What (or who) is your
creator?

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
>