From: hampday@earthlink.net
Date: Wed Sep 28 2005 - 07:16:28 BST
Hi Rebecca --
> Hey now boys...
"Boys" is an apt description for people who get their jollies by hurling
insults at contributors whose ideas they don't like. Mark's response came
as no surprise, and I expect to see some others. When Mark grows up he may
learn that metaphysics is a subject that separates the men from the boys.
I commend you, Rebecca, for showing a genuine interest in this subject and
having the courage to be the first with meaningful questions.
What I've been doing (with Reinier's help) is some basic theorizing on the
very first principle of Creation. Our justification is that you can't
logically get to steps two, three, and beyond without explaining that first
step. For all his colorful analogies and feel-good euphemisms about
Quality, Mr. Pirsig has not provided a theory of Creation (ontology) that
would explain its cause or the dynamics by which experience comes about.
Instead, we are presented with a "source" that the author admits can't be
defined and a reality that consists of myriad patterns at several levels.
The general assumption here is that we don't need a source for reality, we
don't need a metaphysics to explain it, and we certainly don't need any new
theories. Well, I happen to disagree.
> In all seriousness, Ham, I got lost somewhere around
> the "15th century". I just have absolutely no idea what
> you're talking about, maybe it's too complex for me
> (I'm a student after all and there's a lot of crap floating
> around in my head) but you're cramming too many
> concepts into this that I don't understand; I'm an Occam
> girl all the way. So if we could start at the beginning of
> my list of questions, for tonight I'll give you this:
Occam's razor is a good principle to keep in mind. (You probably won't
believe it but I've tried to observe it in my thesis.) Yes, 15th century
theologians would appear to be an unlikely source for a Creation theory.
Yet, if you research this subject, you'll find that there has been very
little
advancement of metaphysical cosmology since that time. Philosophers and
scientists seem to have little interest in ontology. Even the Big Bang
theory presupposes a combustible material. The few new ideas expressed on
the origin of the universe in the last two centuries have come almost
exclusively from astro-physicists.
> Why would we have to assume or accept an 'absolute,
> timeless and undifferentiated Source'? Is that a part of
> the MOQ (if not what does it have to do with it?)?
Kindly remember that while we're trying to accommodate the MoQ, we don't
consider it a doctrine that must be quoted as scripture for every idea
expressed. Reinier is much more closely tuned to the MoQ than I am. The
one thing my philosophy of Essence shares with the MoQ is
its esthetic (non-being) foundation; in that sense Essence has much in
common with the Quality concept. A major distinction, however, is that
Essence has an identity (i.e., Absolute Source), while Quality apparently
does not. But both philosophies may be considered phenomenalistic as
opposed to materialistic in theory.
> Dynamic Quality, as I see it, isn't a Source for anything.
> What do you think?
That's a question I myself have asked, but the answers I've received are
ambiguous and inconclusive. I think it was a shortcoming on Pirsig's part
to leave this question open to speculation. We do not bring ourselves into
being; so if you assume that Quality is the Creator of existence, then you
must considered it the Source.
> Further to that, are we talking about a 'source' being
> the beginning of Everything (like the beginning of
> cosmological evolution) or the 'source' as where things
> come from before they appear as static patterns
> (or realized concepts or 'existence' or whatever)?
Yes, on all counts. However, since experience defines existence in both
philosophies, the details of differerentiated (patterned) things and events
become a matter for epistemological analysis.
> The way I see it (and the standard MOQ definition, I believe),
> DQ is what goes on before we turn things into patterns.
> I like to conceptualize this abstractly as a fractal that is
> constantly in bloom. Dynamic quality is the outside edge
> of that fractal - always becomming, always growing,
> always similar to what came before it but never exactly
> the same in space or time. Could it be that those static
> patterns are the 'Source' of our Dynamic Quality?
> Who knows? Not me, surely.
Fractals are a good analogy. I actually considered going that route when I
wrote my thesis, but decided I didn't need the additional complexity of
fractal generation.
> Now if you'll excuse me, I just finished sitting a three hour
> lecture on the collective unconscious and Joseph Campbell...
You must be a Philosophy major. Campbell's lectures (I've seen a few on TV)
were strong on mysticism, but Jung's "collective unconscious" has
unfortunately fostered New Age notions of a Collective Consciousness which,
I fear, have influenced Pirsig in his development of the Intellectual
Level. For me, conscious awareness is proprietary to the individual, so I
reject the idea of a "universal" Intellect or Consciousness.
I hope this will at least help you understand where I'm coming from. You'll
have to be the judge of whether these concepts make any sense; but please
bear in mind that I make no claim to be supporting or defining the MoQ.
(For that you should talk to Scott, MSH, Ant, David M, Arlo, or Matt -- all
stalwart loyalists of the MoQ.)
Okay, now go and have your beer. Chug-a-lug.
Cheers and thanks,
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 : Wed Sep 28 2005 - 07:21:06 BST