From: Scott Roberts (jse885@localnet.com)
Date: Tue May 17 2005 - 04:37:38 BST
Ham,
Ham quotes Pirsig:
"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]
Ham said:
Now, I see two problems with this epistemology.
Scott:
Before getting to your problems, I'll interject with another: The last two
sentences do not follow from the preceding. Pirsig is assuming that value is
what distinguishes. Why could one not assume that it is distinguishing that
produces the value? This, more or less, is why I consider distinguishing
(intellect) to be creating. But that is my quarrel with the MOQ, while here
I will quarrel with some of your statements.
Ham said:
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.
Scott:
As others have pointed out, your claim that value requires a subject is,
simply, your rejection of the MOQ. The MOQ claims that value does not
require a subject. Yet you seem to think that by repeating "value requires a
subject" is in some way an argument against this, when the fact is that it
is just your starting point, while the MOQ's starting point is that value
precedes the division into subject and object. For revelation that -- at
least on this point -- supports the MOQ, see Franklin Merrell-Wolff's
*Consciousness without an Object* (which is also consciousness without a
subject). (My position is that distinguishing requires value, and value
requires distinguishing, so neither is the cause of the other. Which is to
say that Quality and Intellect are co-dependent.)
Ham said:
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.
Scott:
First, "really exist" doesn't mean much. Or rather, the way you use the word
"exist" is just that: the way you use it. It is not necessarily a bad way,
but to say that it is the only way to use it is just another way of your
saying "my philosophy is right and yours is wrong". That is, you are not
giving arguments for your philosophy over the MOQ's, you are simply
restating your philosophy. In my philosophy, one cannot say that anything
"really exists", one cannot say that nothing "really exists", one cannot say
that anything "really exists" and does not "really exist", and one cannot
say that nothing "really exists" nor does not "really exist".
Second, it does not logically follow, unless one accepts your use of the
word value. The MOQ's whole point is to posit a different use of the word
"value".
Ham said:
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.
Scott:
I reject it, because I reject the concept of "primary source" in metaphysics
(it leads to idolatry). But that is another way in which I differ from the
MOQ.
Ham said:
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.
Scott:
??? Christianity doesn't define God, but still holds that God is the primary
source. The MOQ does not define Quality, but still holds that Quality is the
primary source. I fail to see the relevance of this remark. How could any
primary source be defined?
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.
Ham said:
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?
Scott:
I accept revelation (potential hypotheses), so that's not an issue as far as
I'm concerned. We don't need a primary source because -- metaphysically --
we don't need to separate "everything" into "source" and "consequence".
Instead, I see the need for two or three concepts that cannot be identical,
since they oppose each other, yet cannot be separated either, since they
constitute each other. The logic of contradictory identity. In my view, any
metaphysics (such as Essentialism or the MOQ) that does not make use of the
logic of contradictory identity will end up as idolatry.
- Scott
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 - 04:44:27 BST