From: Steve & Oxsana Marquis (marquis@nccn.net)
Date: Thu Apr 21 2005 - 20:37:44 BST
Ham in response to DMB wrote:
___________________
It's interesting that you entertain the idea of positing Experience (which
we know to be empirical) as the primary reality, but defend Quality more for
reasons of "dialectical convenience" than logical consistency. The logic
is, as you state, "Quality IS Experience". Regardless of its possible
confusion with cultural clichés and SOM ontology, what we're really dealing
with here is individual Experience. I don't think that message has been
emphasized sufficiently to be clear to all MD participants, and I know it
isn't obvious to the casual reader of ZMM or LILA.
To assert that reality starts with Quality as opposed to Experience
immediately introduces an epistemological problem. The author has
essentially constructed his thesis out of this problem. Quality is primary,
he argues, because experience is an SOM phenomenon, and only Quality as an
abstract principle can resolve the duality paradox. It is virtually
impossible for the average person to conceive of a qualitative attribute as
anything but a subjective judgment about an observed object. To consider
Quality a universal principle that exists independently of subjective
awareness is a flight of fancy that stretches logic beyond anything even
hinted at in platonic idealism.
__________________
I've resisted staying out of everyone's way this long, but temptation has
gotten the better of me.
Ham, I fail to see why another fundamental something, such as your essence,
is necessary as the foundation from which Quality arises. Quality (not DQ,
which I have issue with as part of an articulated metaphysics) is just a
label. We could use anything (the Tao, nothingness, etc, etc). A better
label conotates less 'attributeness' in a given cultural context, but, in
the end, the label is the finger, not the moon. If Quality conotates an
attribute of 'goodness' and this stands in the way of 'getting' the
ineffable nature of the Whole, then use another term, but not something that
's 'pre' Quality or 'underlies' Quality as this just heads for infinite
regress.
Pre-intellectual experience is not an SOM phenomenon, for, by definition it
occurs prior to parsing. This is why, IMO, this 'direct' kind of experience
of the Whole lies outside any metaphysics. Metaphysics, the most abstract
level of parsing, can only point at direct experience but cannot describe it
at all. Any description is parsing and we're into articulate thought, and
we've already lost some of the 'essence' (a pun) of the experience. In any
event, since it appears to be possible to have experience of
undifferentiated Quality we do have empirical evidence (to use the wider
meaning of empirical) of the undifferentiated Whole. I find no necessity to
posit anything further. It may be a little presumptuous to claim Quality as
existing independently of personal experience (the Kantian problem). I'm
not sure Pirsig does (MOQ is 'empirical', ie, experience based)
Now described experience is SOM, but given that different descriptive
systems fit different parsed phenomenon better we are not committed to one
and only one SOM just by 'describing'. Described experience is where MOQ
starts, and, as we know, it is a pragmatic multiple truth metaphysics. We
are free to describe, use the analytical knife, anyway we choose.
1) Pre-intellectual direct experience (no parsing)
2) Description (self-talk / labeling feelings / etc)
3) Describing to another (Loss of more 'essence' as we compromise with
another's paradigm to communicate). Metaphysics and philosophy belong here
as 'systems' of description sans 'objective' physical verification (level 4)
4) Empirical (scientific) verification. This is the more common use of
empirical as we appeal to the socially accepted 'fact' paradigm.
It's all about experience top to bottom. Speaking for myself, there is no
conflict between Quality, experience, or empirical. What does come out of
this is no room and no necessity for the transcendental or supernatural.
But the essence of spirituality remains, the concept of Wholeness and
interconnectedness of everything. This, seems to me, is a more elegant and
less complicated explanation than introducing something more above,
underneath, or beyond.
Maybe I need a course in ontology.
Live well,
Steve
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 21 2005 - 21:04:42 BST