From: hampday@earthlink.net
Date: Tue Aug 24 2004 - 17:31:08 BST
Ham Priday to Paul Turner
Sent: Tuesday, August 24, 2004 12:30 PM
Subject: RE: MD The individual in the MOQ
Paul:
Thanks for the clarification and your tips on the conceptual relationship of
MOQ to Eastern philosophies.
Believe me, I can appreciate the difficulties in trying to communicate a
metaphysical concept involving the
differentiation of a monistic essence in plain English for comprehension by
the Western mind. Understand
that I am not "attacking" Pirsig's overall concept which comes closer to my
own philosophy than anything
I've seen since the pre-Christian Greeks. I only wish that the author, who
writes so lucidly in his novels, had
set forth his metaphysics in thesis form so that all of this speculation
about his principal tenets would be
unnecessary.
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.
This is a clear summation of the MOQ insofar as I understand it. However,
I'm still confused by the
terminology. Is Dynamic Quality the "a priori" source, that is, the
"Absolute" itself, or simply a "subset"
of the Absolute responsible for creation (i.e., "distinguishable things")?
As you correctly noted in a
subsequent posting, the use of "essence"..." seems to point to something
unchanging"; hence I see a
problem with an Absolute Source that is labeled "Dynamic". If DQ is not the
"prime mover" (in the
classical sense), then it must allude to a superior entity (Essence?) which
Pirsig has not defined.
> 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.
Since I believe that finite things are "phenomenal" (i.e, constructs of
intellection), the physical reality
I have postulated is entirely subjective. This concept could be construed
as solipsism, except for the
universality of finite perception which I attribute to a cosmic "blueprint"
or "spectrum" that is innate
to the negational (creative) mode of Essence. It is perhaps this blueprint,
rather than Value, that best
represents the DQ posited by Pirsig.
> 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.
I don't understand how you or Pirsig can attribute "purpose" to a creator
and not see it as
teleological. Doesn't "purpose" infer "design"? It seems to me that if
there is no intent in
a dynamic evolution it cannot be regarded as purposeful. To say that the
end justifies the
means, and the end is "betterness", as Pirsig seems to be doing in his
"Giant" analogy,
doesn't pass muster as a teleological scenario. In fact, it makes his Power
a self-serving
end to itself, leaving man's values unaccounted for. Does Pirsig consider
man, the embodiment
of his highest Quality level (Intellect), as a mere pawn of this Power,
disconnected from its
source? This is the picture I get from a second reading of LILA.
> "[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."
Paul, I'm having trouble understanding "betterness" and "rightness" as
teleological
principles in themselves. It seems that Pirsig is aiming for a morality
here but never
quite makes it. And I still think he has denied man (my "subject of all
experience"
and Pirsig's Quality recipient) as the primary existential role player in
the MOQ .
Regards,
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 - 17:47:14 BST