From: David Morey (us@divadeus.freeserve.co.uk)
Date: Thu Aug 26 2004 - 19:25:52 BST
Hi Ham
Hope you agree this is interesting even if no
one agrees with you entirely.
I do not agree with your assumption that quantity
vs quality/value tells us anything about different
about what may lie beyond dasein. We get evidence
of a totality beyond dasein as much from us
both thinking Mahler's music is beautiful as we do
from agreeing that we can count 8 pairs of socks.
Quantity vs quality does not confirm a difference between
primary & secondary qualities. Quantity is simplified
experience, it is a reduction of comprehensiveness,
it can mask the riches of dasein. It is more subject to easier agreement
only because of its simplicity and reduction of complex experience.
dm
----- Original Message -----
From: <hampday@earthlink.net>
To: <moq_discuss@moq.org>
Sent: Wednesday, August 25, 2004 11:18 PM
Subject: Re: MD The individual in the MOQ
>
> Ham Priday to Scott Roberts, Wednesday, Aug. 25
> Subject: Re: MD The individual in the MOQ
>
>
> [Ham said] 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.
> >
> [Scott:] I think I agree with this (except the last bit), but if the
cosmic
> > "blueprint" is universal, then it serves to make finite things in part
> > non-subjective. The physical characteristics are supplied by the
> > organization of the subject, but that organization is itself part of the
> > cosmic blueprint. So your phenomena of color, shape, etc. may not be
mine,
> > but we are seeing the same things, and if we measure them we will get
the
> > same numbers.
>
> Scott, your analysis is quite correct, and I'm delighted to see that it's
> possible for an MOQ subscriber to discover some "common gound" with the
> philosophy of Essence. The difficulty in both philosophies is
communicating
> the concept of differentiation to the Western intellect. Understanding
that
> everything is essentially "subjective" is, I think, the easiest way to
grasp
> this concept. (Understanding that the Value of Essence is "immanent"
comes
> later.) The organization of finitude is, as you have surmised, integral
to
> the cosmic blueprint. I know of no other hypothesis that can account for
> the universality of finite experience; e.g., that you and I can observe a
> box, measure its size, and decide that it's large enough for storing a
dozen
> pairs of socks. This is cognitive knowledge that is shared between us and
> is based upon empirical (quantitative) experience. It has nothing
> particularly to do with Quality or Value, but it still involves the
> "subjectivity" of both of us..
>
> Now, suppose you wanted to select only those socks that are blended with,
or
> matched to, the box's color or design. Here you would be dealing with
your
> own sense of Value, and you might find me disputing your choices. The
> dispute arises over the qualitative or "esthetic" properties of the
objects
> we've otherwise agreed on, and this evaluation will be somewhat different
> for each of us. Values thus "color" our reality individually, while
> physical properties structure it universally. Existence seems to require
> this kind of "preference"; but this discriminative factor appears to be
> significant
> only to the human species. I think this elevates man above other
biological
> organisms, and obligates him to a higher level of moral and intellectual
> awareness than lesser creatures lacking Value sensibility..
>
> I don't know if I've answered your question, Scott; but it's led me to an
> analogy that might be of future use in explaining the distinction between
> quantitative and qualitative experience, and how Value is involved in the
> process.
>
> > This cosmic blueprint, though cannot be the DQ posited by Pirsig, since
> the
> > former has structure, while the latter doesn't.
>
> My "cosmic blueprint" has structure only in the differentiated realm of
> finite experience. This is what I have called the "negational mode" of
> Essence, which is illusory insofar as Essence itself is concerned. So, I
> still think there is a parallel here between Pirsig's Quality and my
> Essence. Both concepts posit a monistic Source that manifests a
> differentiated mode. (Or don't you agree?)
>
> 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
>
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 : Thu Aug 26 2004 - 23:11:04 BST