[MD] The hard question.

[118]

Hi All,
I enjoyed reading Ant's presentation below.  Since I was mentioned
(through my AKA Mark Smith), I am taking the opportunity to further
elaborate on those.

On 6/12/12, Ant McWatt <antmcwatt at hotmail.co.uk  wrote:

  Ant McWatt <antmcwatt at hotmail.co.uk  wrote June 6th:
    I think it would be better to say that value isn't a emotional
response but is primarily experienced emotionally - at least for human
beings.
   For a quantum particle, this "value response" will entail something
  different.


  Ham continued:
     I don't consider the movements of astral bodies or quantum
particles to be  "value responses". Physical objects behave according
to the laws of physics.

  Ant McWatt comments:
     Don’t forget that these laws of physics - in the context of
fundamental particles - is based on probability which is one end of an
MOQ “probability-preference continuum” (as illustrated in Pirsig’s
1995   SODV  paper – found at moq.org and referenced in your paper
about Essentialism at:  www.essentialism.net/mechanic.htm).  Moreover,
since the 1920s, remember that we’re no longer living in a Clockwork
universe as illustrated by Karl Popper in his text “A World of
Propensities” (published in 1990):

  “The world of physics is, we have known for some time,
indeterministic.  It was long regarded as deterministic.  And then,
after quantum indeterminism was accepted, indeterminism was usually
regarded as affecting only the tiniest bodies, such as radioactive
atoms and only very little.  But this,
  it turned out, was a mistake.  We now know that not only tiny
particles are affected but also the probability of chemical reactions,
and thus, of classical mass effects.” (Popper, 1990, p.19)

  “I have stressed that propensities should not be regarded as
properties inherent in an object, such as a die or penny, but should
be regarded as in a situation (of which, of course, the object is a
part). I asserted that the situational aspect of the propensity theory
was important, and decisively important for a realist interpretation
of quantum theory.” (Popper, 1990,  p.14)

Mark Comments:
As you probably know, Ant, the indeterminism you reference above is a
result of the manner of approach in particle physics.  That is, such
indeterminism results from the math.  As such, the math is temporary
and changing.  So while we may not live in the world of "determinism"
as Popper points out, such "living" is a result of a physical paradigm
for such existence.  It is always important to keep this in mind.  If
we do not, then we are governed by SQ.  Determinism or indeterminism
has got nothing to do with Quality.  Since MoQ is a description of a
personal awareness of Quality, MoQ does not need to be governed by
current physical ideas.  In the descriptions provided by MoQ, one can
certainly point to current ideas, but one must always see these as
contingencies and not as rules.

What Popper terms a "realistic interpretation of quantum theory" would
be the same sense if we used the phrase "a realistic interpretation of
MoQ".  Such "realism" is what provides MoQ with its drive.  We cannot
place realism within MoQ.  We are all aware of Quality (I hope), and
due to its nature, it will alway be a personal relationship with what
is.  While we can say that there is a "substance" differentiation
between SQ and DQ, and use that to somehow separate MoQ from Quality,
we disregard the purpose of MoQ.  From your posts, I can intuit what
you feel about MoQ from an academic point of view, however, there is
little to grasp in terms of your awareness of Quality outside of that.
 As I pointed out previously, one cannot discuss metaphysics of beauty
without knowing beauty.  Beauty can be described in any number of
ways.

I thought I would point this out while the troops are rallying behind
your banner.


  Ham continued:

  Although such laws may have teleological value for humans, objects
lack the sensory capacity to respond to value, so to call their
behavior "value-driven" or a "response to value" corrupts the meaning
of value and demeans the term in my opinion.

[Snipped out the defamatory part]

  Ham, [more snipping] you will realize that the choice is basically
between having an “expanded” understanding of the term “value”  (as we
have in the MOQ) or living with a number of intractable philosophical
platypli (as illustrated in chapter 8 of LILA). Though it appears you
haven’t taken on board that these metaphysical problems can’t be
resolved within SOM itself (remember all those great philosophers who
tried - and failed - over the centuries to do so!), at least, you
realize their long-term nature.  To quote from your own paper on
Essentialism:

  “Mind vs. matter is, nonetheless, an ontological schism that cuts
across every observation of physical phenomena, every set of moral
principles, every assessment of man's place in the universe.  Trying
to understand reality by searching only for objective information is
the equivalent of one hand clapping.  The philosopher strives to get
beyond empirical ‘otherness’ for an understanding of reality itself.
For Western philosophers prior to the twentieth century, this was seen
as a goal that could only be achieved by reducing reality to a monism;
that is, by rejecting either the subjective idealism of Plato or the
objective materialism of  Science.”

  In addition, remember an expanded use of value terminology that
includes physics fits in with an indeterministic universe but also
does not affect what is observed in the science lab:

  “The difference is linguistic.  It doesn't make a whit of difference
in the laboratory which term is used.  No dials change their readings.
The observed laboratory data are exactly the same. The greatest
benefit of this substitution of ‘value’ for ‘causation’ and
‘substance’ is that it allows an integration of  physical science with
other areas of experience that have been traditionally considered
outside the scope of scientific thought.  Phædrus saw that the
‘value’ which directed subatomic particles is not identical with the
‘value’ a human being gives to a painting.  But he saw that the two
are cousins, and that the exact relationship between them can be
defined with great precision.  Once this definition is complete a huge
integration of the humanities and sciences appears in which platypi
fall by the hundreds. Thousands.”  (Pirsig, LILA, end of chapter 8)

Mark Comments:
Yes, Ant, good quotes.  What you fail to provide, in a constructive
manner, is the alternative to SOM.  It is fine to claim that Ham needs
some adjustment, but this should be followed by a solution in the same
paragraph.  Perhaps you can show how the levels approach is better as
you point out later on.  Otherwise it may seem that one is simply
being hyperbolic without reason.

The means of your "explanation" may not be adequately explained as a
"linguistic phenomenon".  It is an "awareness phenomenon".  As I do
not know what your or Ham are aware of in your daily lives and how
such awareness guides your behavior, I cannot directly point to such
differences between the two of you.  The "expanded meaning of a word"
simply states that the two of you are talking about two different
things.  Both of you are talking about the same thing, but in
different ways.

I might also suggest that your pejorative of Western Philosophers
prior to the 20th century is somewhat ignorant.  There are a great
number of Western Philosophers who did not have to reject either
science or subjective idealism.  A careful reading of Swedenborg will
demonstrate this.  Remember that Swedenborg was a respected scientist
in his time.  Thomas Aquinas was also a respected Western Philosopher
who did not reject a scientific approach.  We must always remember
that science is an approach to providing explanation.  To reject
science is to reject one's own taste buds which are used for "testing"
food.  The 20th century does not exist in philosophical isolation, and
no momentous change happened.  What Pirsig is trying to do, is convert
the thinking of the common man who has become besotted by science, or
the materialistic approach.  He does this in an approachable way,
without having to redefine Value.  He uses the same value we all know,
and applies it.  If instead he was arguing with the scientific
approach he would be doing battle with windmills.

In my understanding of what Ham is presenting, he goes way beyond
physical "otherness", and is able to embrace it.


   Ham Priday continued May 30th:

  This hang-up on space/time location is an unnecessary obstacle to
reaching some consensus here.  Does consciousness or value have
spacial coordinates in your view?

  Ant McWatt comments:

  Ham, possibly you should be more careful in how you are using your
terminology (for instance, it looks like you’re conflating
consciousness with value here) or we will always be talking at cross
purposes.  Anyway, in  the MOQ, space-time is a high quality idea that
is presumed to correlate to an independent physical reality.  (Again,
as we see in the SODV paper, the MOQ has no fundamental argument with
physical realism though, critically, it adds this “high quality idea”
qualification to it).

Mark comments:
The paragraph above points to the problem with expanding definitions.
For at this point we are not sure if you are using your definition of
Value or Ham's.  It is my impression that Ham's value is a part of
consciousness, but not the sum total of it.

As you also probably know, the scientific method moves from one idea
to a better one.  As such, within the scientific community the current
idea is the best one yet (although this is often not the case).  So,
speaking as a scientist, physical realism is no different from MoQ
realism.  There is no place for an argument there, since many of
Pirsig's ideas are based on the scientific method itself.  That is, to
progress towards better understanding.  However, if you are referring
to Scientism as is worshiped by many laymen, then what Pirsig states
is good rhetoric; however he is speaking as a layman himself when
doing so.  If the underlying principles governing science are
understood, one can see that such a method is no different from that
used in MoQ.  The proclaimed priesthood of Scientists is demeaning to
us all.  This is exemplified by your Popper example above, where,
since physics presents indeterminism through its math we are then
allowed to believe that existence is indeterminate.  What nonsense, it
just simply falls out of the approach they are using; it is no more
real than that!

  Ham continued:

  Beauty and magnificence have value to us, are identified with us,
yet are not limited to the objects that represent them in experience.
I don't understand why your epistemology depends on physical or
biological location.

  Ant McWatt comments:
   I don't have an epistemology.  Anyway, to make things simple here,
when you’re talking about biological patterns in the MOQ, it is
considered a high quality idea that these are located in space-time
i.e. being part of this “objective world” that you enjoy reminiscing
about.
Mark Comments:
Yes, and that there are "biological patterns" is also a high quality
idea.  This kind of tautology is best dealt with using an
epistemology, as you know.  Otherwise we are just floating around in
our own paradoxes.

  Ham continued:
     Incidentally, the notion of "levels" itself suggests relational
difference or contrariety which is not intrinsic to Essence, nor would
I expect it to  apply to DQ.  This is why I find the idea of DQ moving
to betterness problematic, for it suggests that the source of
existence is a variable rather than absolute.

  Ant McWatt comments:
    As far as I understand it, Pirsig is careful to assert that it is
only static patterns of quality “moving to [an undefined] betterness”.
 Dynamic  Quality doesn’t move anywhere.

Yes, DQ does not move since there is nothing to move.  It is a source
less source (an analogy, remember).  Although we tend to think of DQ
as something (for this is the result in objectifying it for
conversation), we cannot deal with it as some thing.  In Pirsig's
example using "levels" we also have a difficulty.  That is, that we
have static pattens describing static patterns, which cannot be done
logically.  However, we all understand why Pirsig uses the paradigm of
such patterns.  One must not focus on the patterns themselves, but
instead why they are used.

The difference in levels that Pirsig presents can also be viewed as a
difference in purpose, or expression.  His example using the hardware
and software of a computer was better than the universal levels, in my
 opinion.


  Ham continued June 8th:

  The modern world, like the ancient world which preceded it, is a
relational  system, and human beings relate to each other in the same
fashion.  That the  source of this system - whether you call it God,
Quality, or Essence - is  posited as unconditional or non-relative
does not make it a redundant or
  invalid concept.  On the contrary, the ontology of a pluralistic,
relational universe is strengthened by an absolute source as its
fundamental principle.

  Ant McWatt comments:

  You’re missing the point here Ham. Cultural relativism is worse than
useless in this modern world of ours.  You seem (again quoting from
your on-line paper) concerned that the United States is being
“terrorized by a horde of suicidal fanatics bent on destroying Western
Civilization in the name of a deity that shows no regard for the value
of human life.”  That’s rather sensationalist.  For instance, did you
see any of these nuts on your recent visit to Chincoteague Island?  I
dare say you didn't and that a rather more detached, impartial
examination of other world cultures would strengthen the credibility
of Essentialist metaphysics.

Mark Comments:
Ham is trying to explain Essentialism, so I am not sure what point he
is missing.  Cultural relativism is a red herring.  One can claim that
it is a low quality idea, however, one must present an alternative to
make this valid.  If there is a tendency towards a mean, which is what
"mixing" does, then we have to present why such mixing would result in
progress as opposed to equanimity.  Or, why it would not result in the
lowest common denominator.  If we all seek equanimity, then where is
individualism?

Please remember that what Pirsig presents at times is rather
sensationalist as well.  This is called rhetoric.  What you term
impartial, is partial towards your method.  One must be careful with
these adjectives.  Show me somebody who claims to be impartial, and I
will point out his agenda.

  As I pointed out to Mark Smith recently, Pirsig's philosophy was a
development of the ideas espoused by F.S.C. Northrop in his seminal
text "The Meeting of East and West". This was the book read by Pirsig
on his return home from Korea in the late 1940s and is largely
concerned in how the major world cultures can be reconciled with each
other through a detailed examination of their cultural norms and
history.  Remember, much of Northrop's book had been written during
the Second World War and, as he  states in its introduction, the newly
invented Atomic bomb made it possible for the first time, for human
beings to completely destroy themselves. This being the case, it was
then imperative for world governments to catch-up with this new
reality hence the need for better inter-cultural understanding
through new organizations such as the United Nations.

Mark comments (leaving behind the United Nations comment):
Well, I would have to differ here in opinion (what a surprise?).
Pirsig's philosophy is based on his experience as Phaedrus.  It is
important to separate the academic from the experiential.  Certainly
reading Northrop can be one such experience, but many people have read
Northrop (I would imagine).  There is a difference in ideas
coinciding, and in ideas being expanded on.  So Pirsig's philosophy is
based on his awareness of Quality.  We must never forget that and
limit MoQ to some academic argument.  ZAMM was not written for the
hardened philosophers; although it was used in a philosophy class I
took back in the '70's.  One must sometimes step back from the
academic format of MoQ and look at the big picture, that being Quality
itself.


  Ham concluded June 8th:

  I appreciate your thoughtful comments, gentlemen, as well as the
opportunity to put the philosophy of Essence into proper perspective
as it relates to Value.  I also hope these comments will help to
resolve some of our differences.

  Ant McWatt comments:

  My pleasure, Ham.  I will finally add here that your metaphysical
system would be much improved if you finally dropped these redundant
notions of subjects and objects and replaced them with the MOQ’s four
static levels of value patterns.  [Snipped other condescending
remarks]

Mark:
Hmmm... Please explain for my and Ham's benefit, in one paragraph.

All the best,
Mark Smit, Ph.D, D.I.C
Personal site administrator and source
Administrator of household, father of children
Moderator for MoQ to blend philosophies and move forward as Ant states
Impartial Antagonist of faction development
Peace be with you
Hooooooyaaaaah!




  .
   		 	   		
  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