From: Platt Holden (pholden@sc.rr.com)
Date: Thu May 19 2005 - 17:15:10 BST
Hi Ham,
Platt (previously)
> > As soon as you introduce the idea that Quality requires a "sensible
> > agent" I know you're assuming a subject-object worldview which apparently
> > you find impossible to shake. Obviously if you make that assumption what
> > you claim about "Quality without a sensor makes no sense" follows
> > logically. But suppose, just suppose, you began with the assumption that
> > Quality is existence, and that existence itself is a force for good. Then
> > the initial division becomes not subject/object but forces that initiate
> > changes (Dynamic) and forces that preserve changes. Why adopt the
> > assumption that existence itself is a force for good? Because existence
> > in which value (quality) is subtracted would be empirically
> > unrecognizable.
> I never said, or even implied, that existence was a "force for good", so I
> don't know where the morality issue came from.
I never said that you said or implied that existences was a "force for
good." I said, "Suppose you begin . . ." with that assumption. I gather
you don't want to engage in thought experiments. Not that it's easy. All
of us, including me, come to discussions of philosophy with hardened
mindsets, which is OK because if we stopped to question everything we said
we'd suffer from analysis paralysis and get nothing done. Stereotypes are
handy because they eliminate a lot of time between seeing something and
knowing what to do about it. So everyone has a worldview, but few ever
think about it. They either don't have have the time or the inclination,
or both. Here we have an opportunity to discuss the assumptions on which
our mindsets are built which, I think, is a good thing. For me, anyway,
it's enjoyable. And who knows, I might learn something. :-)
You don't know where the morality issue comes from? "Quality" is all about
morality. The two concepts are inseparable. Something is high quality if
it's right or good, both moral judgments. Something is low quality if it's
wrong or bad, both moral judgments. We make hundreds of such quality
judgments every waking minute, using a scale from absolutely good, like
feeding the baby, to absolutely bad, like throwing the baby out the
window. Most of our judgments are in between the two extremes, with a
neutral zone in the middle of the spectrum of "I don't care" which gets a
lot of work.
> If I accept your assumption
> that Quality is existence -- I assume that "existence" to you means reality
> -- then Quality is the primary empirical reality, as Pirsig has stated.
Yes. And that existence, that primary empirical reality, is bursting with
morality -- with values of good, bad, indifferent, but mostly good, like
"It's good to exist" and "It's good to evolve towards something better."
> Then everything else is "secondary" in the sense that it is either a
> derivative, an appearance, or an illusion of Quality. This would also
> imply that the cognizant Self is illusionary, which supports Mark's
> statement (from the Capitalism thread):
Everything is derivative from Quality in the sense that the Dynamic aspect
of Quality is the force for good at the leading edge of existence. But,
left in the wake of that force are static patterns that are no less a part
of existence. Thus Quality encompasses both the creation (change) and
preservation (stability) aspects of experience. There's nothing illusory
about the stable aspects, the consistent patterns of value that make up
what most people call the "objective world." The "self" (the individual)
is no more illusory than you are.
Mark:
> > Objectivists see individuals as absolutely distinct from one
> > another; the FRH [fully realized human] understands that all
> > humans share a common humanity, and that any perceived
> > difference between individuals is a cultural illusion.
> Mark me down as an "objectivist", then.
Me, too.
> At one point last year you were a
> strong advocate for individualism; your default to the collectivist
> ideology of the MoQ thus comes as a disappointment to me. While you appear
> to have reduced the individual to a byproduct of nature, I have made human
> awareness the irreducible core of existential reality.
There's no collectivist ideology in the MOQ that I can detect. You must have
taken some of the leftists contributors here seriously. The MOQ makes room
for both leftists and conservatives in emphasizing the necessity of a strong
social level to support the higher intellectual level and the positive aspects of
experimentation and change, but balances that by citing the need for logical
consistency and the protections of freedom to insure survival of a vigorous
intellectual level. To my mind, the issue between leftists and
conservatives boils down to, "What freedoms must we sacrifice for the
sake of the public good." Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Castro and other socialists
have one answer. Democracies led by the U.S. have another. There's lots of
wiggle room in between.
> According to my immutability principle, there is no fudging, i.e.,
> "leveling off" or partitioning, of Essence into varying degrees of
> intellect or value. Once you have awareness of an "other", you are in the
> realm of differentiated existence, and Reality is part of that other.
Yes, I know. You are a strong advocated for subject/object metaphysics.
>The
> difference between you and me and anyone else is all the difference in the
> world, and while the "sharing of humanity" is a nice liberal metaphor for
> collectivism, it's an untenable metaphysical position.
I couldn't agree more.
> If you believe in the Designer principle, it takes no leap of faith to
> realize that the universe is set up as a differentiated system; that is,
> the individual confronting what he perceives as his existential reality.
> There is a "clean break" between the unity of Essence and the
> differentiated world of existence. Within existence things have the
> attribute of polarization; everthing is seen as relative to everything
> else, including the qualities and values we ascribe to them. In this
> anthropocentric system it is up to man to set the standards of behavior,
> ethics and goodness that we call Morality.
Again you speak for S/O metaphysics. As for Morality, you (like most
people) think of it only in terms of social behavior. But with Pirsig, the
term takes on a much broader meaning. Like Aristotle who freed thought
from irrational errors, Newton who freed physics from the alchemists,
Einstein who freed physics from the Newtonian machine, Mozart who freed
melody from somber Medieval chants, Watt who freed travel from the horse
and buggy, the Wright brothers who freed man from the bounds of earth,
Henry Ford who freed production from painstaking handwork, Picasso who
freed painting from photographic realism, Pirsig freed morality from its
social prison and gave us a new metaphysics that explains reality better
than S/O metaphysics (which has no provision for morals.)
> This, incidentally, is where I depart from orthodox religion, and where I
> also take issue with the "humanistic ideology" implicit in the MoQ.
Don't think the humanist ideology is implicit in the MoQ. Can you explain
why you think so? Just by denying the God of religion doesn't ipso facto
mean someone buys humanism.
> Morality for the MoQer is defining some things as better than others; thus,
> what one perceives as good is called "high quality", what is not so good is
> "low quality". That's not a morality system, it's a moronic system;
Oh? How so?
> and
> how can one become enlightened to the purpose of existence when the MoQ
> reagards the individual as "a cultural illusion"?
As said, the MOQ doesn't regard the individual as a "cultural illusion."
Only some interpreters of the MOQ believe that. Actually, the MOQ
celebrates the individual and regards him as indispensable. "Only a living
being" can respond to Dynamic Quality. (Lila, 13) That "cultural illusion"
bit only comes in when the conversation turns to mystic Buddhism and
postmodernism, two highly questionable viewpoints.
> Platt said:
> > But I hope I can persuade you that there's empirical evidence for values
> > if for no other reason than you place a low value on a multi-level
> > Quality hierarchy. You make countless similar value judgments every day.
> > In fact, empirically there's no escape.
>
> Values ARE empirical, like everything else in our individuated existence.
Well, a minor breakthrough perhaps. Values are empirical, i.e., real,
indeed.
> The only value that is non-empirical is the Value of Essence which is the
> source of existence. Unfortunately, many of us seem to have difficulty
> recognizing that value.
A stupid question no doubt, but how can we recognize Essence if it's non-
empirical?
> Platt said:
> > Ideas, thoughts, dreams, all exist. They are experience.
> > Otherwise, you couldn't describe them. But just because they exist
> > doesn't necessarily mean they are high on the value scale of believability or
> > truth.
> According to you, Santa Claus and the tooth fairy exist, but on a "very low
> level of the value scale". Come on now, Platt. Where is "reasonable" on
> your value scale?
"Reasonable" is high (just below Freedom) on my value scale. I assume,
it's high on your scale, too.
Best,
Platt
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 May 19 2005 - 17:15:22 BST