[MD] Is Quality a monism?

[Ham Priday]

Greetings Ron, Ant, Andre, and All --

[Ron to Andre B, July 1st 2012]:

> 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 begining on which all explanation extends.
> But That is probably the only way I'd say that Quality is "one".

Ant McWatt comments:
> I think Ron has an interesting take on how the MOQ can be
> considered monistic but (as he specifically asked for my
> opinion!!!) I think Pirsig would hold that the MOQ goes
> further than just being the "primary explanatory factor in our
> philosophical theories". He is asserting (IMHO) that Quality
> comprises the whole universe. Remember the "every last bit
> of it" comment in Chapter 20 of ZMM? This assertion is
> confirmed by later correspondence with Pirsig whether
> that's with myself or other people.

Ron comments on Tues, 7/3::
> Once the idea of "one" is used as a primary explanatory factor
> it immediately introduces "not one" which the tetralemma
> addresses in all it's variations of explanation and what it does
> not adequately explain is the beautiful and the Good. If we
> combine them as the Platonists did, and equivocate unity
> with the Good and the true and the many with plural and the
> false or illusonary, we have truth/appearence in the form of
> the Dynamic/Static explanation. That is why I think we must be
> careful with what we mean when we say that "Quality is one".
> We can Pragmatically avoid a lot of false philosophical
> problems if we avoid associating Quality with unity.
> Willie James had some good reasons why not to also.

Your caution is well justified, Ron.  To say that Quality is primary to our 
understanding and experience of reality is one thing.  To claim that Quality 
is "one" in all its variegated forms is not only illogical but 
metaphysically incoherent.

What is the medial value of low Quality moving to high Quality?  Would it 
compare with a shade of grey on the color spectrum, or score "mediocre" on a 
morality scale?  Yet, this is the net result implied by Pirsig's "universe 
composed of Quality".  It is man who determines (measures) value, and 
without a sense of what is good and bad, Quality would be meaningless.

What I'm saying is that there is no value in a perfect universe, and no 
meaning for man, either.  I know Pirsig abhors metaphysics because "it's all 
definitions" and "if we define it we are defining something less than 
Quality itself."

But he also said this: "Quality is the continuing stimulus which our 
environment puts upon us to create the world in which we live."  That may 
not pass as a "definition", but it does describe a concept which can be 
supported by most people, including me.  Ron put it well when he said: 
"Quality then is the primary explanatory factor in our philosophical 
theories."  I would season this with a bit of epistemology and say that 
Value is man's longing for the Absolute Source from which
he is estranged as an existent.  That Source is the Essence of all being and 
non-being that comprises his experience of reality.

In closing I also want to comment on Ant's rejoinder to my statement that 
"the 'monism' you are looking for is Ultimate Reality, from which Value is 
differentiated by human sensibility."

Ant replied:
> And, therefore out of the MOQ, out of the remit of this
> Discussion group and back in conventional Western
> philosophology!

It saddens me that someone so academically proficient as Anthony would 
consider Ultimate Reality outside the bounds of a philosophy forum and, even 
more, that he would deride Western Philosophy with this label.

Anyway, today we Americans will be celebrating our independence ...
(while we still have it!)

Have a bang-up 4th and
Cheers to all,
--Ham