From: hampday@earthlink.net
Date: Thu Nov 04 2004 - 08:13:05 GMT
Rich,
I said --
> From what I understand of MOQ, it does not support a primary source. You
folks
> have shown Quality to be empirical -- something requiring an observer to
> perceive.
You replied --
> That's true, but that doesn't mean Quality requires an observer to EXIST.
I find it it impossible to think of Quality existing independently of an
observer. In fact, I can't think of Quality as an "existent" at all. But
then, I've grown accustomed to the "special definitions" one must apply to
MOQ terms in order to understand the philosophy. Pirsig performs many
acrobatic feats with this word, and I'm afraid some of them are sleight of
hand tricks. I'll give you a few examples.
The most immediate problem that presents itself is Pirsig's splitting of
Quality into Static and Dynamic types. This may be necessary to account for
evolutionary processes of Nature, but a differentiated agent cannot
logically be a primary source. Once you introduce a change in the source,
it is no longer primary, and you are obliged to answer what causes the
change.
I've quoted SODV extensively on my website, including Pirsig's assertion
that "the world is composed of three things: mind, matter and Quality." If
this trinity is Pirsig's essential reality, obviously Quality cannot be both
a constituent and the source of it. In this same paper he also substitutes
Value for cause, giving the example: "'A causes B' can be better said as 'B
values precondition A'." (I have never been able to learn, either from the
author himself or your MOQ members, precisely how Value is distinguished
from Quality.) But now our list of essential MOQ terms encompasses two
types of Quality, plus mind, matter, and Value. Which of these, pray tell,
is the primary source?
Pirsig refers to a book by Professor Northrup of Yale University, which
he says was pivotal in inspiring the MOQ. He writes: "Northrup's name
for Dynamic Quality is 'the undifferentiated aesthetic continuum'. By
'continuum' he means that it goes on and on forever. By 'undifferentiated'
he means that it is without conceptual distinctions. And by 'aesthetic' he
means that it has quality." Now this would seem to imply that DQ is meant
to be the author's primary source, much like Karl Jaspers' "Comprehensive".
But inasmuch as Pirsig uses DQ to explain or identify evolutionary patterns
and cultural changes, all of which are differentially distinct, he has
violated
his own definition.
Finally, I'm not comfortable with a philosophy in which the self has no
connection to the "source" except in the collective sense, and then only to
follow a precept vaguely defined as "some things are better than others".
Some of the posters here seem to have had an epiphany over that phrase, as
if it were a motto of profound insight. Unfortunately, I see it as a feeble
substitute for a moral code. I don't like being critical, Rich, and I've
expressed some of these complaints before; but I couldn't let this rehash of
"intellect on an atomic level" pass with adding my two cents. Thanks for
giving me a reason to get back into the fray!
Ham
ham:
"Richard, if you can show me where Mr. Pirsig says he believes in a primary
source, I'll stand corrected. So far, I've not found it."
I believe he says this in many places throughout Lila and ZMM. He also says
in SODV, near the end I think, that Quality is the source of subjects and
objects, not the other way around as is commonly believed. This Quality is
the primary source.
Rich
Do you Yahoo!?
Check out the new Yahoo! Front Page. www.yahoo.com</a
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 Nov 04 2004 - 08:20:55 GMT