[MD] Is Quality a monism?

[Ham Priday]

Greetings, Andre (and all) --

On Sun, July 01, 2012 7:35 AM, "Andre Broersen" <andrebroersen at gmail.com> 
wrote:

> Ron (previously) to Andre:
>>
>> That's a great philosophical question Andre, "how do you
>> know unity, oneness, whole?" you said we know them statically, which 
>> feels like the right direction. Quality then is the primary explanatory 
>> factor in our philosophical theories? and in this way
>> we can say that Quality is one because it is the basis and
>> beginning? on which all explanation extends.
>> But That is probably the only way I'd say that Quality is "one".
>> ?
>
> Andre:
> I think that's right Ron. In Pirsig's words the MoQ is a high-quality
> static intellectual pattern of value because of it's economy of
> statement, explanatory power (where there wasn't before) and the
> harmony it produces. Dq/sq is as you suggest 'the basis and beginning on 
> which all explanation extends' and I would add depends. I tend to see this 
> in the context of Pirsig echoing Abraham Maslow on the AHP tapes when he 
> says that we need something bigger than ourselves ( I think in response to 
> and reaction against scientism, positivism, populism and churchly stuff).
>
> In this same context I prefer to change the notion of man being the
> measure of all things into DQ/sq is the measure of all things. An evolving 
> wherein 'Man' is a participant. Like William James insisting that 'the 
> human being is continuous with Something More'.
>
> Not sure if this makes sense.

Well, for what it's worth, I am sure it doesn't make sense.  And I'll tell 
you why.

Pythagoras was right.  Man IS the measure of all things.  This is what he is 
biologically and psychically equipped for and what his entire 
life-experience is about.  Indeed, the unique ability to experience 
valuistically and distinguish what is virtuous, moral, worthy, useful, and 
desirable from what is not describes man's role in existence as well or 
better than any religious credo or philosophical maxim I know.  Without this 
discriminative measuring ability, there would be no reason or meaning for 
human existence.

This is what concerns me about positing Quallity (Value) as an external 
existent which independently guides or controls man's preferences, thereby 
denying him free choice.  The idea has led to the absurd notion of a robotic 
man swept toward some utopian betterness in the flow of evolving Quality. 
It is inconceivable to me that the cosmic plan would "evolve" a creature 
with such exquisite sensibility unless this faculty were intended to be 
nurtured and used for optimal value realization throughout one's 
life-experience.

We debate, argue, analyze, and analogize in this forum over whether Quality 
is a monism, as if a monism is what is needed to make sense of a value-based 
metaphysics, while doing our best to forget that we are all sensible 
subjects.  Neither Value nor Morality is an existent in itself.  The 
"monism" you are looking for is Ultimate Reality, from which Value is 
differentiated by human sensibility.

If you are seeking a metaphysical paradigm for existence, I suggest that you 
consider this one:
Existence is the value agent's relational perspective of otherness -- the 
reality in whose Oneness there is no other.

Essentially speaking,
Ham