[MD] Really? Is that all there is?

[Hamilton Priday]

For Krimel and All --


I'm not an "orthodox MoQer" by any standard, but as Krimel opened his 
question to everyone, I'd like to comment by way of clarification.

First off, assuming that you all accept Mr. Pirsig's syllogism "Quality = 
Value", I shall cite Value in all cases because I think it is the more 
understood term for what the author had in mind.

Here is how Krimel defines the problem:

> The central tenant of the MoQ, that is, prior to any "central distinction"
> is Quality.
> All distinctions flow from a central unity.
> The problem is not this distinction or that.
> It is distinction itself.

I totally agree with this analysis.  Inasmuch as all existence is 
experienced differentially, "distinction" is unarguably its principal 
(central) characteristic.
Distinction or Difference not only establishes the foundation for 
existential reality, but the individuation which makes experience 
proprietary to each value agent.

The one reservation I have with Krimel's statement lies in his use of 
"prior".  While it is true that value is prior to experience, it is not the 
primary Reality.  Rather, Value is an "attribute" of that ultimate source. 
Actually, it is the only quality or property of the Primary Source that we 
can define.

Krimel then goes on to describe the distinctions which constitute SOM 
reality:

> They are spectra, probability distributions, horizons.
> There is no rigid line that marks the boundary between SQ and DQ there is 
> no
> chasm there.
> What presents itself to us in the lifeworld is not always either SQ or DQ 
> or
> subject or object.
> It is often both and neither.
> Quality is harmony; what Heidegger called dwelling.
> Or as Joe might say: Melody.

Harmony and melody (I'm sure Joe would agree) are chordal or linear 
progressions, and are not monistic or undifferentiated to the discriminating 
ear.  The sequence of chords and melodies comprise the "process" of 
music-making which is a source of value for the appreciative listener.

> The first cut no matter how well planned remains arbitrary at every 
> distance.
> It shapes coherence around itself and no one likes to build coherence on
> shifting sand. It is easy to see the motive for wishing nothing more from
> the MoQ than an excuse to shift from one foundation to another.
> But that rather misses the point entirely.
>
> When for example Nietzsche's madman says "God is dead and we have killed
> him."
> He means the death of absolutes and absolute distinctions.
> All of them.
> As he says:
>
"After Buddha was dead, his shadow was still displayed in a cave for
centuries-a colossal, horrible shadow. God is dead. But as is the way of
human beings, there may still be caves for millennia in which his shadow is
displayed. And we-we must still defeat even his shadow!"
>
> You seem hell bent on nursing Buddha's shadow.
>
> If you throw Quality out of the MoQ you are just another dualist.
> If you attempt to rename Quality DQ as some terminological trope you not
> only nurse the darkness you wish it to spread into the world beyond your
> cave.
>
> There is no such thing as SQless DQ or DQless SQ.

I'm not sure there is no SQ-less DQ, since DQ is posited as indefinable. 
However, I am quite certain there is no "experience" of Value in the absence 
of a sensible agent.

> You [Arlo] say, "The MOQ's static-dynamic distinction is the key. It's the 
> first
> move and without that the rest of it won't make any sense."
>
> The MoQ's static-dynamic binary is not a "distinction" it is a continuum.
> And making rigid distinction, relying on mutual annihilation rarely makes 
> sense.

Here is where I take exception.  The Primary Source I have postulated is not 
a "continuum' but uncreated "static" Reality.  So, if you presume DQ to be 
the source, Difference (i.e., "distinction"} can only arise by negation of 
that source.  I submit that creation may qualify as that rare instance in 
which annihilation does make sense.

Hegel, for example, proposed that appearance 'is the negation of the 
negation of Being."  The secondary negation, performed by the individual, 
annihilates the primary negation whereby difference is created from a 
holistic source.  He applied this precept to morality in a societal sense, 
as well.  Consider this quotation from his 'System of Ethical Life': 
"Ethical life must be the absolute identity of intelligence, with complete 
annihilation of the particularity and relative identity which is all that 
the natural relation is capable of."

I'll skip the remainder of Krimel's post, which is mainly a criticism of 
Arlo's interpretation of the SOM/MOQ ontology.

Thanks for the opportunity.  I hope these comments make some sense without 
offending the orthodoxy.

Essentially yours,
Ham