[MD] A problem with the MOQ.

[118]

Hi Ham,
We seem to have our wires crossed here.  There are several
perspectives from which to view a "primary source".  I will address
these in response to your comment below.  I added some previous parts
to the conversation, although I am not sure if they fit.  I just
wanted to give others a placeholder as to where to look for the
origins of this conversation.

On 4/24/12, Ham Priday <hampday1 at verizon.net> wrote:
>
>> Mark: I would have to say that DQ is not synonymous with Value.
>> However, I am hard pressed to explain this.  Having said this,
>> I cannot find a useful definition for Value which is not somehow
>> self-referential and therefore redundant. ...
>
> Ham:
>> All value is self-referential in that it relates to the self who
>> experiences it.  What makes that "redundant"?   And since Pirsig himself
>> equated Quality with Value, I don't see why the "ultimate Quality" (DQ)
>> should not be synonomous with Value as well.
>
> Tuukka:
>> Like Pirsig says in LILA, any thing is identified by its properties. Since
>>
>> any thing is, according to the MOQ, Quality, there will
>> never be anything Quality would not be supposed to refer to,
>> and Quality is thus a nonrelativizably used predicate. The true
>> purpose of the concept of Quality is rhetoric: it is intended to
>> convey the impression, that it's inappropriate to perceive the
>> MOQ as an extension of any traditional Western ontology,
>> such as materialism or idealism. The statement "everything is
>> Quality" is intended to clear the reader's mind of arbitrary .conceptions,
>>
>> not to convey much metaphysical content per se.
>
> You've provided an apologist's argument for Pirsig's thesis, and I can't
> fault  that analysis.  At the same time, if everything is Quality, then
> Quality is the source or "essential" reality, which means that existence
> (man's reality) is a
> a fictional facsimile.  I could buy that ontology except for the fact that
> Quality is a relational phenomenon which cannot exist without subjective
> awareness of an objective otherness.  In other words, Quality (Value) is
> contingent upon pluralistic existence and NOT an independent "essence".
>
> That, folks, is my main problem with the MOQ.  I appreciate your objection
> to the "evolutionary" aspect of Pirsig's philosophy, Tuukka, which does
> indeed "make metaphyhsics a branch of history".  But it also branches from
> the flaw I've outlined above.  For the concept of an absolute Quality
> (whether interpreted as Excellence, Goodness or Morality) simply doesn't
> pass muster as a logical thesis.
>
> And, for Mark's benefit, this is why, for me at least, existential reality
> has to be a reduction or 'negation' of Essence.

Mark, for Ham's benefit:
I am not quite sure what you mean by a "fictional facsimile".  Man's
existence is an embodiment of Quality.  This does not make it
fictional, but very real.  We are pointing to an underlying fabric
here, in a manner similar to particle physics looking towards string
theory.

This is the paradigm shift: Instead of a Subject’s interaction with
Other creating quality, Quality creates that interaction.  Here's an
analogy: When an apple is sliced in halves by a knife, it is the knife
which creates the distinction in halves.  It is not the halves which
create the knife slicing.  Your argument in this analogy would be that
the two halves are the source for the distinction in the two halves.
My argument was that the slicing needs to happen first.

Let us take this analogy into the realm of Quality.  We have a sense
of Value when we appreciate something, say a dolphin.  You would say
that both the dolphin and the person must be in place for the
experience to manifest (subject/object realization of Value (SOV)).
With reference to the apple analogy, I would say that the experience
is what creates both the person and the dolphin (Value object/subject
(VOS)).  That is, the sense of other is created from the "inside out",
rather than from the "outside in".  Experience is a primary source,
not the result of some divine allowance.  Experience would be a
manifestation of DQ in this case.

Logic can be used for either scenario, and the only difference is the
perspective.  Your perspective would be from the point of view of the
subject and object coming before the Value.  My perspective would be
from the Value coming before the subject and object.  Both are
correct!  MoQ chooses the second perspective for the purposes of
providing meaning in a different way from SOV.  Using this
perspective, I am able to understand much more about "being" than with
SO as a starting point.  The "SO first" perspective requires an
endless recursive beginning for both subjects and objects, which is
where Buddhism goes.

You are able to circumvent such endless recursion by naming a Primary
Source.  This primary source creates both subject and object in a
manner which is analogous to my description of VOS.  You use the
principle of Negation to accomplish this.  I use the principle of
Creation.  The difference is that you create two entities from which
comes Value.  I use Value as my starting point and thereby simplify
the equation.  End of story.

There are no apologies necessary for simplicity in metaphysics.

There are no apologies necessary for not having to bring in a Primary
Source which is outside anything we can possibly know.

There are no apologies necessary for claiming that Quality is right
here right now in its endless creation, rather than something behind a
curtain.

There are no apologies necessary for describing the appearance of
Being in terms of levels of existence (this has been done successfully
throughout the ages).

There are no apologies necessary for providing an alternative paradigm
to the one which the West has been bewitched with.

There are no apologies necessary for not apologizing.

End of ramble.
Over?!
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