From: hampday@earthlink.net
Date: Tue May 17 2005 - 01:52:57 BST
Hi Scott, Platt, Mark --
As is my nasty habit, I'd like to inject my own thought into this
discussion. Let's make it a real argument! In your dialogue with Platt,
you came up with one of those questions that it would seem Mr. Pirsig is
supposed to have solved. You asked:
> Is there value experience in a
> molecule 100 miles below the earth's surface? The MOQ says there is. No
> MOQist experiences that, though, so it is unempirical assumption.
I'll follow the approved custom here and quote from the Master:
"There's a principle in physics that if a thing can't be distinguished from
anything else, it doesn't exist. To this the Metaphysics of Quality adds a
second principle: if a thing has no value it isn't distinguished from
anything else. Then, putting the two together, a thing that has no value
does not exist. The thing has not created the value. The value has created
the thing." [LILA, Chpt. 8]
Now, I see two problems with this epistemology.
The first is, it gives us no referent subject -- no "who" or "what" -- to
determine whether something has value. Thus, while your subterranean
molecule has no value for you or me, its presence is certainly foundational
to the structure of the universe. So that, if the universe had a Designer,
that molecule would clearly have value. Otherwise, for something to "be
distinguished from anything else" requires the discrimination of a rational
mind -- presumably, man's.
Secondly, if man is the missing subject (and Pirsig implies as much while
absurdly denying that Quality requires a subject), then nothing exists which
can not be experienced [i.e., valued]. This means that such accepted
existents as the other side of the moon, a tree falling in the forest with
no one to see it, all subatomic particles, any color outside of the visible
spectrum, things in total darkness, and the creative process itself, do not
really exist.
Now I personally buy into that theory; however, I don't believe Mr. Pirsig
does, and I'm almost certain that neither you nor Platt does. Nonetheless,
if Quality [Value] is posited as the Primary Source, it logically follows
that unless there is a sensible agent capable of recognizing Quality,
nothing exists. For anyone.
As I see it, you either accept the proposition that Quality is the Primary
Source, or you reject it. Any other position is just so much equivocation.
I happen to be in total agreement with Mark's assertion that the MoQ does
not define a primary source. I would add that I think this was intentional
on Pirsig's part. In fact, it's been my major complaint from day one.
msh:
> I think Pirsig opened a can of worms when he left his Holy trinity of
> SOQ and tried to make Quality the primary source. He never defends
> this statement, he just sets Quality at the top and away we go. Now,
> I think we can argue that he ASSUMES this to be true in order to get
> his metaphysics off the ground.
So, how do you all get around this objection without revelation,
obfuscation, or equivocation? How can you say we don't need a Primary
Source?
I'll keep tuned in,
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 : Tue May 17 2005 - 01:58:30 BST