From: hampday@earthlink.net
Date: Sat Jul 16 2005 - 06:57:41 BST
Hi Platt --
Referring to the RMP quote, I said:
> If quality is the "stimulus our environment puts upon us to create the
> world", then the environment is the primary cause, and we are the world's
> creators. But what is the "environment" if not our physical reality?
> Thus, stripped of its poetry, the assertion being made here is that
reality
> forces us to create reality. That such a tautology continues to impress
> Pirsig's followers is a tribute to the author's word mastery rather than
> his metaphysical logic.
You offered this explanation:
> I think "environment" in this context means more than physical reality. I
> think it also includes things like our legal system, the liberal arts, and
> intimations of immortality, i.e., the full spectrum of our experience --
> physical, mental and spiritual.
Yes, I understand that a person is influenced by the cultural environment,
in the same sense as we say "clothes make the man". But that's a different
context than the one under discussion, which is the metaphysical nature (or
created essence) of the individual. I think you'll allow that there is more
to the individual self than what is acquired from experience. I see the
individual as the proprietary locus of sensible awareness, without which
there is no experiential reality.
I also said:
> The (otherwise plausible) concept that man creates
> his own reality loses logical credibility, unless something else -- Being,
> Spirit, Energy, Consciousness, Essence? -- is posited as the primary
> source.
You suggested:
> Didn't you omit "Quality" as a primary source? Pirsig didn't.
I could have thrown Quality in there, of course. But as you know, Platt, I
personally find this a weak substitute for the Primary Source. I like
"Essence" because it connotes primacy without suggesting attributes that
relate to human judgment. To me, Quality and Value are measures of
subjective evaluation, which means they're SOM terms. The addition of "DQ"
doesn't resolve this problem, as it's still Quality.
The point I was trying to make, of course, is that words like Quality, Love,
Force, etc. are derivative of physical existence, and that what is missing
is the reality beyond. It's well and good to use such metaphors as the
'ground of existence'; however we also need a Source that transcends
space/time and finite differentiation.
I still don't think Pirsig and most of the MoQers recognize the need for
this Primary Source. The MoQ thesis, as it stands, could be described as a
sort of "esthetic pantheism" in which everything, including man, evolves in
time. Kaufman's "Unified Reality Theory" is a little like that; he bases it
on Consciousness which ultimately evolves to "realize itself". But he's
still talking about a material reality. So, I think, is Mr. Pirsig.
Appreciate your comments, Platt.
Essentially yours,
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 : Sat Jul 16 2005 - 07:19:49 BST