From: hampday@earthlink.net
Date: Fri Apr 22 2005 - 22:34:33 BST
Hi Steve --
Ham wrote:
> [Quality is] just another label without metaphysical foundation.
> Quality is simply a value judgment applied to something experienced.
You said:
> I don't believe I said 'without metaphysical foundation'.
Right. That's my contention, anyway. The author must have felt the same way
because he didn't see fit to provide us with one -- at least one that can be
recognized as a metaphysical ontology. (I guess he thought it would weaken
his emphasis on empiricism.)
> 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).
Yes, that's right. Essence has no attributes that we can directly sense or
theorize with any certainty. However, I have borrowed a theory of negation
to account for Creation which, from the finite perspective, would make
Essence "negational". Since created entities, including creatures, are also
negated, we have that in common with the Creator. (The "polarity" isn't
critical to the concept; it just helps to balance a metaphysical equation
involving the affirmation of negated Value.)
> 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.
Nothingness plays a key role in the differentiation of existence, but I
cannot accept it as a label [description?] for Essence. Actually, I define
Essence as the antithesis of nothingness. I don't know much about Taoism
(other than the Yin-yang symbol); however, I find most of Eastern philosophy
concerned with moral and ethical virtue and rather disparaging of
metaphysics -- much like Mr. Pirsig.
> 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.
Thanks for looking into it, and take your time. I know it's not easy
reading, and the Value connection isn't as well postulated as I'd like it to
be. (Ideally I'd like to find someone in the MD willing to help me with
it.)
> 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.
He had his problems, too. I think the philosopher always confronts a "work
in progress". I can't imagine reaching a point where I can comfortably say,
"There! It's finished".
> Is an attribute a definition even if
> that attribute is only sensible by direct pre-intellectual
> non-differentiated experience?
You'll have to define a "direct pre-intellectual non-differentiated
experience" for me first. I haven't had one of those that I'm aware of.
Ask your nearest Taoist ;-).
Essentially,
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 : Fri Apr 22 2005 - 22:58:27 BST