[MD] Quality and the Higgs Field: An Analogy

[Ham Priday]

Hi Mary, Mark, John, All -- 

On Thu, Jan 27, 2011 at 5:52 PM, Mary <marysonthego at gmail.com> wrote:

> If all things were the same, there would be no Quality.
> Or maybe all would be Quality.

[Mark responded]:

> If all things were the same, there would be no Quality.
> Quality is what separates and differentiates. The manner
> in which Quality interacts with Sameness is what provides us
> with values and morals. It is what provides us with choices.
> Therefore, one should not look at things as having Quality.
> Rather it is what separates those things that has the Quality.
> As a field, it is utterly dynamic, and leaves a static world in its
> wake. Such Quality has more existence than what it creates,
> since it is the foundation of all. The static world is a byproduct
> of the movement of Quality. So, my friends, look between
> (not subjects, not objects) and there is your answer.

[John added his agreement that everything can't be Quality]:

> I'm chiming in with Mark on this one Mary, if everything is
> Quality, then Quality doesn't exist.

I'll admit to ignorance of the Higgs Field of quantum physics, except that 
the "boson particle" that is supposed to activate the field has never been 
detected.  So, like "dark matter" which fills another gap in cosmological 
understanding, I assume its existence is theoretical.  But I am concerned 
about the fallacious interpretation of Quality (Value) as an agent of 
creation.  The creative "agent" in my ontology is man himself, not the value 
he senses emotionally or aesthetically.

In the first place, as Mark knows, I reject the notion (advanced by Pirsig) 
that "everything is Quality".  It is a philosopher's prerogative to 
euphemize what he believes to be a moral principle of the universe. 
Epistemologically, however, Quality is not an 'essence' or 'matrix field' 
that exists independently of awareness and has procreative power.  Rather, 
it is a relative measure of value attributed to an object or event by a 
conscious subject.  If it were not for the observer's realization of quality 
or value, it would not exist.

That quality is inherently differentiated is supported by Pirsig's signature 
theme: "Some things are better than others."  Indeed, if everything was 
perceived to be of the same quality, how would quality be recognized?

Also, I fail to understand what has prompted Mark to insist that Quality is 
a "differentiator".  Since it is the conscious agent who realizes the Value 
of a given experience, it would seem to me that differentiation, like the 
gauge of beauty, is "in the eye of the beholder."  According to Mark, 
"Quality interacts with Sameness [to] provide us with morals and choices." 
He seems to be proposing a dichotomy of "Sameness" and "Difference" in which 
Quality plays the differential role.  (I wonder what sort of things he would 
classify under "sameness".)

What differentates (separates) one thing from another is the space or void 
between them.  For me, this is nothingness.  We measure linear values with a 
ruler that separates units of length with dividing lines. We use a prism to 
separate the color values of white light.  Likewise, the keys of a musical 
instrument separate pitch values of the tonal scale when a melody is played. 
Thus, the differences that we experience valuistically are delineated by 
nothingness, not by the value or quality itself.  The nothingness that is 
impressed upon our experience does not come from the empty space of the 
physical universe but from the individual self, which (in my ontology) is a 
negation of the absolute source.

Thanks for allowing me to add my two cents,
Ham