[MD] Quality and the Higgs Field: An Analogy

[118]

Hi Adrie,
I found your interpretation of the quotes you present interesting, if
somewhat meager.  I have some comments below.
Mark

On Thu, Feb 10, 2011 at 3:02 AM, ADRIE KINTZIGER <parser666 at gmail.com> wrote:
[Lila quotes snipped]>
> Comment , Adrie.
> okay, this is the fork , the junction,as were Pirsig is setting the flag.
> and it is a red flag...
>
>
> =>two camps,one follows the philosophical line of reasoning
> (Ham on his own).
>
> =>the other camp , Mark and John, following the scientifical line of
> reasoning.

[Mark]
I would say, that the line between a so called scientific and
philosophical (or metaphysical) approaches is quite vague.  All of it
is human intellect at work creating.  The scientific approach requires
testing, so I would not necessarily call what I am writing scientific.
 But, I think I understand what you mean, I would call it a logic
approach.
>
>
> at first we have to pay attention to the red flag.
> Pirsig>"The difference between these two points of view
> is philosophic, not scientific."end.
> Apparently it is Pirsig himself declaring the value of all statements
> mentioned above as philosophical value's (man induced), and declaring
>
> furthermore, that....
> "(pirsig)""NOT SCIENTIFIC".......
>
> Keep in mind that this is a concluding endsentence written in context
> declaring value's (intellect induced).

Yes, the point is determining the value of an approach.  There are no
absolute truths to be had, and metaphysical quality depends on
rhetoric.  The value of the rethoric (or Quality) is determined by the
reader.  Until recently, science was considered a branch of
philosophy.  This is why an advanced degree in any scientific field is
often called a doctorate of philosophy.  So, to say that something is
not scientific but philosophical, is a reflection of one's attitude
towards science.  Science does not present Truths, but through
agreement of observations, truths are conceived (with a small "t").
So, again, the demarkation between scientific and philosophical
methods is not rigorously valuable.  But since we are dealing with
rhetoric, I can say that I understand your interpretation of Pirsig.
>
> i'v never agreed with Pirsig on this postulate that the laws of nature are
> moral laws,because i strongly believe that as wel nature as the universe
> are completely indifferent towards morality.I don't have to agree,Pirsig
> himself is providing the red flag to me,"The difference between these  two
> points is philosophical, not scientifical....";=> Pirsig himself stays on
> the philosophical field in the endstatement,..developing the metaphisikal
> branch of morality, not the scientifical one.
> I think this is the correct choice to make for a Philosopher.
> The scientifical path , however,is clearly unlocked by the statement, and
> open for development.

[Mark]
The consideration of the universe as amoral is up to the individual in
what he considers to contain morality.  My interpretation of Pirsig is
that what humans call morality is an aspect of the universe itself and
not confined to the human experience.  Of course then we get into
semantic battles on the meaning of words.  However, it is important to
keep perspective of what Pirsig is saying.  He is not making a
distinction between what man percieves and what the universe
percieves.

We can be considered to be a universe within ourselves and thus
isolated from the rest.  This does not make much sense, based on the
interelationship of ourselves and the world at large.  While we can
state that our subjective sense of awareness is confined and could be
considered isolated (although I can present debate against such a
notion), this is where the isolation ends.  The functioning of our
brains is in no way isolated, and thus incapable of insulating our
inner universe from that outside.

Therefore if you consider man to be moral, you have no choice to
consider the universe to be moral.
>
> ------------------
> so concluding, Ham, on his own,is still on top of the case, declaring
> himself in conflict with pirsig, but flawlessly in tune with the author
> to stay on the philosophical side of the flag, trying to recognise value's.
> The scientifical path, left open by the author,(John and Mark) is not of
> lesser value,and open.They need to be aware of the flag, and the possible
> implications.

[Mark]
I appreciate your support of Ham, and find his dialogue to be of high
quality, indeed.  It would seem that you perceive higher Quality in
his arguments, although you seem to be confining it to a definition of
morality.  If morality is considered to only be human, then he does
have a point.   This is where he and I disagree, of course.
>
>
> Coming back on Phaedrus'' statement now.
> I think it only misses clarity, i think it is extremely sharp to recognise
> this , but it is very easy to misread,to follow his line of reasoning.
>
> ------------------
> Pirsig
>
> "That's why Phædrus got such a weary feeling from all this. All the way
> back to the beginning. That's where he had to go.
> Because Quality is morality. Make no mistake about it. They're identical.
> And if Quality is the primary reality of the world then that means
> morality is also the primary reality of the world. The world is primarily
> a moral order."
>
> -------------------
> Very thin ice to step on, but i'll try, keep in mind however,(imho)!!, i'm
> only speaking for myself, and i am not representing Pirsig's opinion in any
> way.

[Mark]
Pirsig is fighting his own demons here.  He is weary of his
interpretation and seeks to be free of it.  The equality is simple
math, if Quality = primary reality, and if Quality = Morality, then
Morality = primary reality.  I do not think his math is thin.  Perhaps
you are pointing at something else with the thin ice analogy.  By the
way, anytime we post in this forum, we are representing our own
opinions, not somebody elses.  No matter how many quotes you provide,
the interpretation is still yours.
>
> This is how i should write it.(i took the complete content of lila in
> consideration)
>
>
> "Back to the beginning.That's where he had to go.
> Because quality is morality.Make no mistake about it.
> They're identical."
>
> And if Quality is the primary intellectual reality of the human world
> then that means that morality is also the primary intellectual reality of
> the human world.
> The human world is primarily a moral order.
> But imho!!!

[Mark]
I guess you confine the statement to the human condition.  This is
what Pirsig is trying to emphasize against.  So with your
qualifications, you miss the whole point.  IMHO, of course.>
>
Cheers,
Mark>
>
>
> --
> parser
> 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
>