Re: MD The individual in the MOQ

From: hampday@earthlink.net
Date: Tue Aug 24 2004 - 01:52:18 BST

  • Next message: Mark Steven Heyman: "Re: MD MOQ and Logic/Science"

    Ham Priday to Adam Watt
    Sent: Monday, August 23, 2004
    Subject: Re: MD The individual in the MOQ

    Hello, Adam. Glad to have you back.

    I quoted Pirsig (LILA) to Paul as follows:

    > "From a Metaphysics of Quality's point of view this devouring of human
    > bodies is a moral activity because it's more
    > moral for a social pattern to devour a biological pattern than for a
    > biological pattern to devour a social pattern.
    > A social pattern is a higher form of evolution. This city, in its
    > endless devouring of human bodies, was creating
    > something better than any biological organism could by itself
    > achieve."

    I then "editorialized" on this passage:

    > Something better?
    > This could have come right out of Nietzsche's "Man and Superman"! Of
    > course the atom did not build New York -- man did. But Pirsig would
    > have us believe that the edifices of man are the work of an insentient
    power.
    > This Giant, this moral force, this Value that Pirsig says contains man and
    > has named as the architect of reality is beyond the reach of man, because
    > the author has "partitioned" him off through a self-serving heirarchy of
    > levels.

    You asked:
    > Would you be so kind as to explain why you think man is 'partitioned' off
    > in this way? I'm not clear on why you think the MOQs Levels have this
    effect?

    What other effect is achieved by setting forth a framework of "Quality"
    levels than
    differentiating the patterns that need to be addressed in this theory; e.g.,
    Intellect, Social Patterns, Biological Patterns, and Inorganic Patterns?
    If they were not differentiated, there would be no Metaphysical "system",
    and we would have Quality dealing with Quality (a tautology).

    The point I'm tryng to make with Paul is that Pirsig hasn't escaped
    subject/object
    duality by this device. He has merely obscured it by positing a multi-level
    heirarchy (diagrammed in his SODV paper) in which the Intellect (the
    subject)
    confronts the object in terms of three "kinds" of Quality as opposed to only
    one.
    Yet, lurking "in the background" is Quality of a fourth kind which the
    author has
    labeled "Dynamic". ( I suspect that DQ may be considered equivalent to my
    Essence Value - unconditional Value manifesting the Essence denied to finite
    creatures.)
    But whereas I have posited Value as a direct link to its source (Essence),
    Pirsig does
    not make such a connection.

    Thus, except for man's ability to experience Quality, he is isolated to the
    pattern levels
    designated by the MOQ. Life has no meaning for man, since he is a
    "partitioned off"
    by evolutionary levels, the "highest" of which (Intellect or "knowledge") is
    magically
    invented by DQ. "To the question 'What is the purpose of all this
    knowledge?'
    the Metaphysics of Quality answers, 'The fundamental purpose is to
    Dynamically
    improve and preserve society'." LILA, chpt. 24

    Why? To what end? Certainly not any that offers meaning to the individual
    in the
    finite world or in ultimate reality. Which is why I've maintained that
    without an
    absolute source MOQ remains incomplete as a thesis.

    Your second question refers to the wrap-up statement in my note to Paul:
    > I see Value as relating to something more esthetic and cosmically
    meaningful
    > for mankind than this mechanistic evolutionary scheme.

    > Bearing in mind that '"The tests of truth are logical consistency,
    > agreement with experience, and economy of explanation." could you
    > also possibly elaborate slightly on what you think that is?

    Adam, I have answered this with what I believe is "logical consistency" and
    "agreement with experience" in my wensite at www.essentialism.net.
    Unfortunately, I can't reduce it to the "economy of explanation" required
    here.
    Please read what I have to say, and get back to me with your questions.

    Essentially yours,
    Ham

    > MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
    > Mail Archives:
    > Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
    > Nov '02 Onward -
    http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
    > MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
    >
    > To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
    > http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
    >

    MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
    Mail Archives:
    Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
    Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
    MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net

    To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
    http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Aug 24 2004 - 01:52:39 BST