From: Platt Holden (pholden@sc.rr.com)
Date: Fri Apr 15 2005 - 16:29:13 BST
Hi Ant, MSH, Ham, Wim, All:
> 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."
The logical positivist who see fundamental reality as material without
purpose or value would deny Pirsig's claim by attributing such judgments
as mere human-centric opinions which are irrelevant to the quest for
truth. Even the claim that the quest for truth is a value would be
dismissed on the same grounds.
Pirsig agrees with theists in his belief that the universe has both
purpose and value. His argument for the existence of Quality is similar in
many respects to the teleological argument for the existence of God. The
MOQ is more theistic than scientific, despite all denials to the contrary.
Finally, as far as I can tell, Ham's "essence" is no different than God
when defined as the ground of being and prime mover.
Best,
Platt
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 : Fri Apr 15 2005 - 16:27:39 BST