[MD] relative

[Ham Priday]

Greetings, Joe --


On Sun, Jan 1, 2012 at 7:09 PM, you said to Tuukka:


> Pirsig's theory of knowledge is Quality, a direct perception of DQ
> indefinable reality, quality, and SQ definable reality, quality, MOQ.
> The difference in individuality or perception is evolution.  In trying
> to conceptualize evolution and individuality I prefer to accept levels
> in existence MOQ rather than the proposed levels in essence SOM.
> I accept Essence as indefinable.  Imho Essence is without boundaries
> in evolution and indefinable.  The individual is definable.

You've hit the nail on the head, Joe, and your conclusion that individuality 
is definable whereas DQ reality (Essence) is indefinable provides a 
dialectical handle for experiential existence.

For some time I have referred to existence as a "differentiated, relational" 
system, which seems to have fallen on deaf ears.  The appellation 
"definable", however, not only makes "relative" clear in this context, it 
offers the possibility of a new perspective on Existence itself.   Why can't 
we discard SO as a "metaphysical" paradigm --which it really isn't--and 
instead describe Existence as "Definable Reality".  After all, despite the 
fact that the conscious self eludes proper definition, everything it 
experiences is definable.  Moreover, if knowledge is what we learn from 
experience, then it is the Individual who defines it.  And, when all 
individuals define experience in the same way, we have universal knowledge 
(which is why people like Marsha prefer the term "conventional").

The human animal is uniquely equipped with the power of discrimination.  Not 
only are "things" defined by human beings, so are virtue, morality, justice, 
esthetics, reason, and significance.  Does this not suggest to you, as a 
'Qualityist', that man's role in the cosmos is to be "be measure of all 
things", that is, the final judge of merit or value in the experiential 
world?  And, if Value (Quality) is the primary essence of existence, isn't 
it our role as human beings to actualize Value by discriminatively bringing 
it into existence as Definable Reality?

What a profound concept to ponder, especially after parsing the meaning of 
"static patterns", "high and low quality", "betterness", and "inherent 
existence" to death over these years!  This is, indeed, an anthropocentric 
universe in which man is the decision-maker.  The individual is not just a 
pawn of nature's laws.  For by exercising his innate value-sensibility and 
rational judgment, man defines the problems and determines the solutions by 
which he changes the course of history for better (or worse).  He is free to 
do this because HE, not Quality, sets the parameters, and because Absolutes 
like Truth and Goodness are not revealed to him in the "definitive mode" of 
Ultimate Reality.

You may have some objections to my analysis, Joe, and I'm a little late in 
recognizing it, but I commend you for planting the seeds of a comprehensible 
paradigm that could well replace the ambiguity of Pirsig's language.  (The 
MoQers should applaud you for this insight.)

Definably yours,
Ham

- - - - - - - - - - - - - -

> SOM is discredited if we do not know what we are talking about.
>
> Pirsig described DQ as knowable though indefinable, and SQ as knowable and
> definable.  Knowledge is king.
>
> Joe