From: Steve & Oxsana Marquis (marquis@nccn.net)
Date: Fri Apr 22 2005 - 18:16:02 BST
Ham wrote:
___________________
My point, exactly. It's just another label without metaphysical foundation.
Quality is simply a value judgment applied to something experienced.
__________________
Hi Ham.
I don't believe I said 'without metaphysical foundation'. That's the bone
of contention, right? Let me feed back to you what I think your criticism
of Quality as the foundational metaphysical essence is and you tell me if I
got it or not.
If we are to keep the first cause, the 'undifferentiated' Whole, ineffable /
indefinable / undifferentiated it cannot be assigned any attributes
whatsoever for to do so brings us right back into the plurality of
differentiation (ie, the realm of duality).
Before considering Quality let's consider two other 'labels' for such an
undifferentiated Whole: 'nothingness' (meaning the absence of plurality
rather than 'empty' I take it) and the Tao, which means just the 'way' or
path, a label as good as any it seems for steering our mind away from
assigning attributes. In both cases it seems to me the intent of these
labels is just what you intend with your immutable essence, and that is an
attributeless entirety. If this is correct I fail to see the advantage of
another label. So there must be more to Essentialism than this.
BTW, I did glance through your web site and will read some from time to
time, but it's way too much to digest all at once.
Pirsig did insist in ZMM that Quality remain undefined. So far so good.
But it does seem that the choice of the label 'Quality' implies the
attribute of 'goodness'. In fact, this must be the case for the whole thing
(in ZMM) was triggered by Pirsig trying to define his contractual duty to
teach 'quality'. He experimented in his rhetoric classes with an intuitive
awareness of quality (meaning what is better) and his whole quest was
centered around 'The Good' (Aristotle supplanting the Good with the True;
'What is good Phaedrus? Do we need anyone to tell us these things?').
Not to mention the later addition of a second attribute in 'Lila': the
inherent creative / evolutionary drive to higher and higher quality static
patterns.
I'll leave it at that and let the rest of the MOQers resolve the apparent
conundrum of Quality with attributes. Is an attribute a definition even if
that attribute is only sensible by direct pre-intellectual
non-differentiated experience?
Ham:
______________
The "interconnectedness of everything" is a pantheistic concept that won't
do for me because I see Essence as a unified Whole. All things taken
together, whether substantively or experientially, still have the
differentiated properties of a "thing". Essence is immutable: it is the
indispensable "uncreated" source of all things that transcends the
limitations of finitude.
______________
The point behind either Wholeness or 'interconnectedness' is inter or co
dependence. I understand quite clearly you want to get away from plurality
cleanly, but this basic 'spiritual' concept will apply in either case. IOW,
our points are about separate issues.
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 : Fri Apr 22 2005 - 18:22:53 BST