[MD] Quality and the Higgs Field: An Analogy

[Ham Priday]

Hi Mary --

[Re: Ham's assertion that the universe is amoral]:

> Amoral as in there is no such thing as morals, or as in
> opposed to morals in the sense of evil?  This is not meant
> to be a silly question.  It pertains directly to what you assert
> further along.  If you believe there is no such thing as morality,
> then any morality you choose is nothing more than a figment
> of your imagination - it has no basis in anything.  It's just the
> opinion of yourself.  On the other hand, if the universe is
> ultimately evil, I'm not too happy to hear that.

By amoral [a-moral] I mean neither moral nor immoral, but free of moral 
value.

Value is not a universal principle or mandate, but is relative to the 
individual who perceives it.  Thus, any moral system is based on a consensus 
of the culture or society that institutes it.  This is why the morality of 
Islam is in conflict with the morality of the Free World, and why the 
morality of leftist liberalism is constantly at odds with the morality of 
free-market capitalism.

"Moral absolutism", whether imposed by a religion or a state, is an attempt 
to suppress the value choices necessary for the exercise of individual 
freedom.  If you have reservations about moral relativism, I suggest you 
read a short sermon on this topic by Unitarian minister Steve Edington 
titled "Confessions of a Moral Relativist".  (You can download it from my 
archives at http://www.essentialism.net/confessions.htm.)

> The "Quality is whatever you like" personal judgment tack, Pirsig
> refutes by turning the whole notion on its head and asserting that
> things don't have quality, but Quality has things.  Meaning, that our
> personal judgments about morality, values, quality, etc. do not spring
> from the free will of the ego but rather from the universal
> recognition of Quality.

Quality (Value) "actualizes" things.  Value is the essence of what we 
experience as subjects and objects.  It is what holds together the 
Sensibility/Otherness dichotomy and binds us to our uncreated Source.  What 
Pirsig denegrates as "the will of the ego" is in fact the freedom to act in 
accordance with our value-sensibility.  Sensible awareness is not "ego" but 
the very nature of selfness.

> Don't know about Mark, but Pirsig would say that SQ is the
> static fallout of experienced DQ.  Pirsig says there is much more
> to 'reality' than the static fallout we experience as subjects and
> objects.  That's a major premise of ZMM.  I think Pirsig says
> mainly that there is a great deal more to reality than we can define
> or differentiate.  Another way to put that might be to say that we
> create our reality from our experiences.  We see through the glass
> darkly and are unable to experience the entirety of all possible
> realities.  DMB says we dip our ladle into the stream of Quality
> and what we come back with we call reality.

I do not deny that "there is much more to reality than...subjects and 
objects".  But experiential reality isn't a "fallout" of Quality.  (That's 
"seeing through a glass darkly" to borrow your scriptural phrase.)  Rather, 
the world of appearances is Value differentiated and transformed into finite 
being by the cognizant self.  How else could we "create our reality from our 
experience"?

> That's the crux of the difference between the two views, isn't it?
> Pirsig rejects the ego as the ultimate arbiter of reality and demotes
> it to just another set of SPOVs.  It certainly has value, but is not
> the right tool or best tool to use for interacting with the universe.
> It is inadequate and incomplete.  That the MoQ as understood by
> SOM (which is what you seem to be talking about) is also so,
> does not mean the two are equal, and I would say that making the
> effort to transcend the ego in the attempt to understand the universe
> is a positive step forward.

I regard "ego" is a derogatory and misleading term for valuistic 
self-intent.  It demeans the individual contributions that have fostered 
human civilization, moral justice, the industrial revolution, the aesthetic 
and literary arts, and the technologies that have made this planet a more 
habitable and productive environment.  It's a waste of time, in my opinion, 
to decry the duality of physical existence as a false philosophy.  After 
all, subjects and objects are the
reality we deal with every single day.  Transcending the ego won't lead us 
to understanding;.  instead, we must overcome the notion that differentiated 
existence is all there is to Reality.

At least, that's my mission.  Thanks for giving me the opportunity to 
advance it.

Essentially speaking,
Ham