|Subject:||RE: [Quantonics}: New top three MoQ Assumptions.|
|Date:||Fri, 03 Sep 1999 11:14:38 -0700|
|From:||Steve Marquis <Flameproof>|
|To:||quantonics email list post <email@example.com>|
(To post to our email list, you must subscribe. See instructions
on our top page.)
(Minor edits, CITE blocks, who wrote, etc..)
Quantonics Email List Message
Doug, Roger, and Dan,
Doug lists our next three assumptions:
4. MoQ reality IS Quality.
5. Quality is intrinsically moral.
6. Quality is intrinsically good.
As a group, these are important for they speak to essence of
The failure of logical positivists / secular humanists to produce a
coherent system of values is indicative of their over emphasis on fact.
This is over-reliance on SQ (ignoring DQ), even if it is intellectual.
As humans this is not satisfactory (we naturally value quality), and
thus we have a 'moral vacuum', New Age spiritual quick fixes, and
The appeal to Nature is foundation of Stoic ethics. Their
"live in accordance with Nature". This does not mean abandon
civilization (ie, become a noble savage), it means become
harmonious with reality. Stoic cosmology also sees reality as
providential. From 'Olympian' perspective; everything is good.
Nature does not make mistakes. Evil does not exist. Also, there
is no separation between Creator and Created as appeared later
in Christianity. The Stoics were pantheists.
You can see, Doug, that I would prefer 'naturally' to 'intrinsically'.
However, this is not a hard preference, as 'nature' does have
baggage with some people. Intrinsic, as opposed to instrumental,
implies ends, not means. Quality is good in and of itself, not good
for something else. This implies the highest level context, ie, there
is no where else to go.
I cannot think of any real objections to this group of three.
are, as Doug stated, basic Pirsigean axioms and almost direct
quotes. We still have a problem of using words (ie, definitions).
'Quality', 'moral', and 'good' all imply their opposites: what is not
quality?; what is not moral?; what is not good? My attempt at a
solution is there is good quality and better quality, but all is Quality,
etc. How do we talk about good and bad good? Well, one SPoV
is of a higher value than another, but all SpoVs have value. Moral
evolution is a vector moving form dogma to DQ, but everything is
moral, given a certain perspective.
Doug, I did not send you quite a long post concerning mysticism
metaphysics. We seem to be making some progress. No need to
bog down unnecessarily. In a nutshell, I am reconsidering my 'pure'
DQ definition of mysticism. A possible solution to my koan is
complementary and uncertainty. A sharp focus on DQ excludes
SQ (mysticism), and a sharp focus on SOM, or SQ, excludes DQ
(empiricism, etc). Either focus does not violate reality as
quanton(DQ,SQ). The unique position of metaphysics is that it is
structured (ie, SPoV), but it is divorced (more or less) from reliance
on inorganic / biologic SPoV (ie, 'objects'). Mysticism is not
structured at all. I have seen metaphysics as a bridge between both.
Is metaphysics a higher order context that holds both? Not sure yet.
Pirsig was quite clear that, in MoQ, moral progress moves up
hierarchy of SpoVs towards DQ. This places empiricism, etc,
'below' metaphysics and metaphysics 'below' mysticism, IMO.
Quantonics Email List Message