From: hampday@earthlink.net
Date: Thu Apr 14 2005 - 18:42:21 BST
Hello, Anthony --
Pirsig stated mid-2004:
>
> "My problem with 'essence' is not that it isn't there or that it is not
the
> same as Quality. It is that positivists usually deny 'essence' as
something
> like 'God' or 'the absolute' and dismiss it [as] experimentally
> unverifiable, which is to say they think you are some kind of
> religious nut. The advantage of Quality is that it cannot be dismissed
> as unverifiable without falling into absurdity. The positivist cannot say,
> for example, that his experiments have no value, or that he does not
> think that anything is better, or worse,
> that is, of more or less value, than anything else." [RMP letter to Ham]
>
Ham noted April 14th 2005:
>
> The author's desire is wishful thinking, however, because qualitative
> attributes are precisely what the methodology of logical positivism does
not
> allow.
>
Ant McWatt comments:
>
> Isn't it the case that if there is any "wishful thinking" happening it is
> the positivist's desire for a value-free methodology as they can not
escape
> from saying that they think they approach is "better" (i.e. has more
value)?
> If you think they can escape from this contradiction, I'm all ears.
> If you can't state how they can escape from this contradiction, isn't this
> an indication that the MOQ is a substantial improvement on your
> "Essentialist" system - at least, in this regard?
Great question! My answer is that there is no contradiction in an objective
approach to knowledge if you believe that reality is all "otherness", as the
positivists do. Since this is a fundamental point of Essentialism, I've
addressed it at some length in my thesis. Here are my key assertions with
some supportive quotes:
_____________________________________________________________
The philosopher's search for Essence can't be satisfied by the discovery of
an ultimate particle or energy wave source in the objective world. Since
metaphysical truth must hold for "all possible worlds", the search is
necessarily subjective in approach; it involves the positing of a plausible
theory expounding the universal nature or "whatness" of existing things, and
coming up with valid arguments to support it. ... Trying to understand
reality by searching only for objective information is the equivalent of one
hand clapping.
It is a most significant fact, I think-and perhaps even a fundamental law of
Nature-that man's ability to validate reality is limited to the realm of
finite perception. Nobel winning theoretical physicist Max Planck had
nailed the problem over a century before when he said: "Science cannot solve
the ultimate mystery in nature. And it is because in the last analysis we
ourselves are part of the mystery we try to solve."
"The universe is not 'out there', somewhere, independent of us. ..."Simply
put: without an observer, there are no laws of physics."
-- [Astrophysicist John A. Wheeler]
Considering the fact that everything knowable about the universe is
experiential, it is ludicrous to suggest (as Sartre did) that man is
"unnecessary" inasmuch as "...the world exists just as well without him."
The primary attribute of the material world-its apparent being apart from
cognizant awareness-is itself an intellectual phenomenon. That makes man a
*sine qua non* for the existence of differentiated reality. We can only
speculate as to the nature of an objective world without sensible awareness,
except that it would be meaningless.
The essence of reality is not a property of the physical world but a
creative wellspring that is more integral to the act of observing than to
the externalities perceived. .... Scientists, in particular, are trained to
reject information that cannot be expressed in numbers or equations, or that
is incapable of experimental confirmation. Because reality for the
scientist is limited to observable phenomena that are measurable in units of
time and space, philosophers are often unfairly criticized for attempting to
resolve the "unanswerable" questions of scientific investigation on the
basis of sheer speculation. While it is true that speculation plays a role
in the intuitive approach, so do logic and reason; and the difference in
methodology does not make the philosopher's insight any less credible than
that of the scientist when it comes to forming a concept of reality.
The concept of a subjective reality has always been fraught with
controversy. It flies in the face of empirical objectivists for whom it has
been remarked that "statistics" may be the closest thing to ultimate
reality, and it totally refutes Sartre's hypothesis that existence precedes
essence. Further, to embrace the premise is to change the fundamental
search for cosmic truth from: What is the nature of the universe? to: What
is the essence of experience?
In the philosophy of Essence, laws and theories are accepted as constructs
of the human reasoning process which do not necessarily reflect the true
nature of reality. For the Essentialist, the predicates "to be" and "to
*ex-ist* are derivatives of an "uncreated" Essence whose reality transcends
the parameters of finite existence. If Essence is a priori, and existence
is limited to phenomena that occur in time and space, then it is illogical
to say that Essence exists. Essence is the infinite Source of finite
experience, not an existent. (Aristotle rejected the "Infinite" as an
existing reality on the premise that a whole number cannot be infinite
because one can never actually count to infinity.) Thus the Essentialist is
not compelled to regard Creation as a specific "act" or "physical happening"
in time and space. Instead, he views space/time existence as a created
sub-realm of Absolute Essence that is largely the product of his
differentiated perspective of otherness.
___________________________________________________________
Are your ears still open, Ant?
Now, you'll remind me that this is SOM reasoning, and that's true. ALL
reasoning about existents (i.e., objects and events) is done by the
observing subject. That includes assertions about Quality and Value as they
apply to existents. Only intuitive reasoning can take us beyond "otherness"
in our quest for understanding. Metaphysics affords such an opportunity.
That's why I maintain that, by avoiding a formal metaphysical thesis, Mr.
Pirsig has left us with the core of an idea whose ontology remains
speculative.
His Quality is not the primary source but an attribute of Beingness. He
refuses to acknowlege proprietary sensibility (individual consciousness)
which would relate Value to this source. Although demonstrably a gifted
writer, Pirsig does not offer a creation ontology to explain how
differentiation (his multi-level Quality heirarchy) occurs. He does not
provide a teleology that would give "meaning" to individual consciousness or
existential Freedom. His worldview is that of a cultural anthropologist
rather than a philosopher, and his ethical platform (insofar as it has been
defined) is: "Some things are better than others". In the absence of an
original ontology, the author resorts to "empiricism", hoping that this will
lend the MoQ "scientific credibility".
To me, these are significant shortcomings for a philosopher who seeks the
acceptance of his contemporaries. But of course that's just one man's
opinion. Obviously the Quality concept has merited the continuing support
of an isolated cult group. Perhaps, one of these days, an articulate
supporter, such as yourself, will produce a document that will make up for
these deficiencies and earn the universal respect that the MoQ probably
deserves.
Incidentally, I think you'll find that my on-line exposition covers all of
the points I've enumerated here, with the possible exception of the
socio-cultural aspects that I prefer to leave to the reader. But please let
me know what you find lacking.
Thanks for another opportunity, Ant.
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
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Apr 14 2005 - 19:38:07 BST