From: hampday@earthlink.net
Date: Wed Nov 10 2004 - 01:48:45 GMT
From: Ham Priday
To: Joseph Maurer
Sent: Tuesday, November 09, 2004 8:45 PM
Subject: Re: MD On Transcendence
Hi, Joe --
>
> [Ham] MOQ does not provide us with a
> transcendent reality, it only pretends to. Since I don't want to be
> responsible for keeping Chuck up at night, I'll admit that I may have used
> the word in an earlier posting. It also appeared in the Amazon
intervewer's
> opening question to Sam Harris (referred to in the "terror & religion"
thread):
> "Obviously there's something in the makeup of humans that impels them
> toward a belief in a transcendent being."
>
> [Joe] I had occasion to go to your website as Aristotle's
> proposal of 'essence' is what I grew up with. Morality is an odd subject!
I
> want to identify the DQ of each level that Pirsig proposes, and maybe see
> why one level is higher than the other. For the social level I can see
> 'existence' (order) as DQ. I agree with you that the "Primary attribute of
> Existence is not Being but difference."
That's probably the limit of our agreement, since I have no particular
interest in parsing the made-made DQ levels which seem to be of special
significance to MOQers. Evolution, like all progressions in nature, takes
place in the differentiated space/time dimensions. As far as Essence is
concerned, the time sequence is of no importance. From the existential
perspective, natural science provides all I need to know about how things
evolve. It's much like the question as to which came first, the chicken or
the egg? Besides, I have yet to be persuaded that Quality creates it all.
>
> IMO Evolution proceeds from the inorganic level. Gravity is the DQ of the
> inorganic level. If "the divine one is a negation of negations" does that
> mean that if I see 'purpose' (feeding) as DQ of the organic level that it
is
> only a negation of 'gravity'?
[Joe, there may be a typo here (feeding?), but I doubt if I would understand
your question in any case.]
> I want to see gravity composed of three forces
> made manifest by evolution in a moral order, to organic, to social, to
> intellectual. What differentiates the negations? More? Stronger? and where
> does this come from in gravity? Why would the intellectual level which has
> the weakest negation from gravity be the last to manifest in evolution,
yet
> be the highest level?
Sorry, I can't help you here. It sounds like you're trying to get Nature to
line up to your personal wishes. I'm an Essentialist, but there's still
enough science in my thinking to realize that one must have empirical
support for theories having to do with the material world. Without it
you're simply theorizing a universe constructed to your idealized fancy.
And that's not metaphysics or philosophy.
Good luck on your project, anyway. I'm sure you'll get more encouragement
from other members of the group.
>
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
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Nov 10 2004 - 03:19:31 GMT