From: hampday@earthlink.net
Date: Thu Sep 22 2005 - 05:55:13 BST
Greetings Temmer (David M mentioned) --
(May I call you Rebecca, as most of us are known here by first names?)
You've posted three notes today concerning David M's "theory(?) of absence"
which he apparently believes has been overlooked in the MoQ.
I should begin by cautioning you that I'm somewhat of a renegade in this
group, having joined the MD mainly to compare my own philosophical thesis
with certain aspects of Robert Pirsig's theory. I've raised a number of
metaphysical issues over the last two years that the "mainstream"
participants would rather let rest. So please don't expect me to speak the
language of patterns and levels.
Frankly, the only "division" I'm currently interested in is the "split"
between the unity of the primary source and the relations of physical
reality (or the experience thereof.) There is some question as to whether
Pirsig intended his DQ to be the "primary source" (a shortcoming in my
opinion). In any case, the single quotation that comes to mind in this
connection is his assertion that "Quality is the primary empirical reality
of the world." This is a reference to the physical world, not to a
transcendent source.
You have made several assertions based on your understanding of the SQ/DQ
relationship. I'd like to comment on them one at a time, and from my own
perspective rather than attempting to speak for the MoQ.
You said:
> We don't experience DQ because experience IS Dynamic Quality.
> When that DQ is valued, it becomes a static pattern.
> Reality is not just about immediate experience, however.
>
> The MOQ says Reality is the combination of Dynamic Quality and
> Static Quality. There is nothing that cannot be included under
> these two headings (if there is, we should discuss). In fact, Static
> Quality encompases 'everything' except Dynamic Quality, which
> apparently can't be defined.
I think you've correctly stated the official doctrine, as I understand it.
> Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that Nothingness is the
> closest we can come to defining DQ. The concept of
> 'Nothingness' is an intellectual static pattern. You have to
> get to it by a bit of a symbolically circular argument though.
> Nothing doesn't actually exsit. That's the definition of
> Nothingness - nonexistence. If we say that Nothing exists
> then automatically it becomes 'something'. We can never
> truly represent Nothing in words, symbols or otherwise
> because it doesn't exist and giving it any explanation
> negates it. Get it?
Yes, I "get it" but I don't like it. As an essentialist, I believe that
nothingness is the farthest we can get from Essence -- if, indeed, DQ is to
be considered the primary source. In fact, in my philosophy, Essence is
defined as the antithesis of nothingness. You are correct, of course, in
pointing out that nothingness is that which does not exist. I explain it as
the "gap" or interruption in conscious sensibility which causes us to
experience reality as differentiated beingness. Nonetheless, David is right
in stressing the significance of this gap, whether he calls it nothingness
or absence.
> When an organism dies, the collection of inorganic static
> patterns that comprises it ceases to be organized in such
> a way that it can value DQ at the biological level. If a
> static pattern (at any level) ceases to exist then, following
> from the argument above, it becomes Dynamic Quality
> again. How does that sound?
It sounds like typical MoQ patterntalk which inevitably leads to questions
like: Can the static patterns "value DQ" at some other level? You see, I
have problems with the special terms used in this philosophy. It seems to
me that what you're really talking about is one's awareness of reality,
which has little to do with either Biology or Value. Conscious awareness is
dependent on the sense organs and cerebral functions to interpret sensory
experience as an intellectual image we call "reality". Therefore, when
these "biological" auxiliaries cease functioning, so does the experience of
reality. Do you accept that explanation?
Now, I'm particularly curious about your analysis of David's "absence", and
why you think it's not "nothingness".
Rebecca:
> Absence is not nothingness, as David points out. Absence
> implies lack of presence (but previous or present existence)
> while nothingness imples lack of existence... a rather important
> distinction. Implying that something absent does not or has
> not existed doesn't seem to me like a very useful way of
> looking at the universe.
As you say, absence is certainly the opposite of presence, but it doesn't
implicate existence or non-existence in our worldview. When the ball rolls
under a chair, we don't assume that it no longer exists because it's
temporarily absent from our experience. What I wrote to David yesterday
still exists, even though we may not be reading it today.
But that worldview or perspective is (even by MoQ's definition) an
"intellectual projection" of experience. Since Pirsig has equated
experience with reality, when the experience of a particular phenomenon
stops, that phenomonon no longer exists in experience -- it's a nothingness.
I can remember the house I lived in when I was six years old; but I can't
experience that house. Even if I were now to visit the place where that
house stood, it wouldn't be the same place or the same house. Memory
provides the continuity of my self-identity through time. As far as my
experience is concerned, the past and the future are both a nothingness to
me. So, I submit that, except for the recalled images, what you and David
insist on calling "absence" is non-existent in experience -- in a word,
nothingness. To put it another way: while memory links us to our past,
experience is always an awareness of the present.
Does that analysis trouble you, Rebecca? If so, tell me whether it's
because you think it contradicts the MoQ or because you believe the
existence of physical objects doesn't depend on our experience of them.
I appreciate your thoughtful responses, and hope to see more of them.
Best regards,
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 : Thu Sep 22 2005 - 07:41:29 BST