RE: MD The individual in the MOQ

From: Paul Turner (paul@turnerbc.co.uk)
Date: Tue Aug 24 2004 - 11:12:22 BST

  • Next message: Paul Turner: "RE: MD The individual in the MOQ"

    Ham

    Ham said:
    If Pirsig is saying that Quality is the source of everything, and
    everything is Quality, then he is positing a tautology; i.e., Quality is
    the source of itself.

    Paul:
    The primary division of the MOQ is that Dynamic Quality is the source of
    all distinguishable things, and all distinguishable things are static
    patterns of quality.

    Ham said:
    Not only is this logically invalid...

    Paul:
    No it isn't. It would, however, be illogical to state that Quality is
    everything and, if it can't be its own source, is therefore also not
    everything. (Although I think there is Indian logic which permits this,
    but this logic is usually used to point away from itself to an
    alternative understanding. I'm sure Scott will correct me :-))

    Ham said:
    Are we to accept the idea that man (whose essence is Quality) is judging
    and acting upon a reality that is his own essence? If so, we are
    discussing a philosophy that is based on the purest form of solipsism.

    Paul:
    The MOQ agrees with Buddhism that the self has no primary independent
    reality. Therefore the self cannot in any way be the *only* reality,
    which is the claim of solipsism. I may be wrong, having not read your
    thesis, but if you think that every thing, including the self, has "an
    essence" this may be confusing you with regards to the MOQ.

    Ham said:
    Reality is much too complex and purposeful in design not to have an
    architect.

    Paul:
    Complex and purposeful? Agreed. Pre-meditated "design" does not
    necessarily follow; hence, neither does the need for an architect.

    Ham said:
    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.

    Paul:
    Slow down. The "giant" is not "the architect of reality," or the "moral
    force," it is a colourful term used to describe the static social
    patterns which are, in a significant philosophic sense, independent of
    any particular individual *biological* humans e.g. the system of
    authority and rules and customs and protocols and laws and standards and
    institutions which do not cease when individuals die.

    Pirsig is saying that these static social patterns, "the city" in the
    example, are left behind by the creative moral force of Dynamic Quality,
    the sense of "betterness." This "moral force" is not beyond the reach of
    man, it is the source of experience that everyone is confronted with all
    the time. Man is only "partitioned" from this direct experience to the
    degree that his behaviour is directed by the static patterns that have
    built up from this experience through his life.

    Ham said:
    A "benevolent god" may be an old-fashioned nostrum and no longer worthy
    of
    consideration in our intellectually enlightened age. It at least had
    meaning. Pardon me if it seems idealistic, but I see Value as relating
    to something more esthetic and cosmically meaningful for mankind than
    this mechanistic evolutionary scheme.

    Paul:
    When I said "pick up your reading glasses," I meant that it would be
    useful if you had read and digested the books containing the philosophy
    we are discussing before "putting your boxing gloves on" i.e. debating
    it. I may be wrong but it seems to me that you have not done this. This
    is because I read your phrases such as "mechanistic evolutionary scheme"
    used to describe a system which makes statements such as:

    "Naturally there is no mechanism toward which life is heading.
    Mechanisms are the enemy of life. The more static and unyielding the
    mechanisms are, the more life works to evade them or overcome them,"

    and

    "..patterns of life do not change solely in accord with causative
    "mechanisms" or "programs" or blind operations of physical laws. They do
    not just change valuelessly. They change in ways that evade, override
    and circumvent these laws. The patterns of life are constantly evolving
    in response to something "better" than that which the laws have to
    offer."

    and

    "[Quality is] the principle of "rightness" which gives structure and
    purpose to the evolution of all life and to the evolving understanding
    of the universe which life has created."

    Regards

    Paul

    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 - 11:13:37 BST