[MD] What is the opposite of Quality?

[Mary]

Hello Ham,

I have not yet had a chance to look at your theory in its entirety, so I
apologize in advance if I try your patience too much. :)

I just have an instinctive, negative gut reaction to anything containing the
word "absolute".  Yes, I think we are created by value and not driven by it.
There is no roadmap, just a general sense of what is "good" in a particular
situation at a particular point in time.  If there were an objective goal,
then would we really have any choice in the matter?

Yours,
Mary

-----Original Message-----
From: moq_discuss-bounces at lists.moqtalk.org
[mailto:moq_discuss-bounces at lists.moqtalk.org] On Behalf Of Ham Priday
Sent: Thursday, January 07, 2010 4:11 PM
To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
Subject: Re: [MD] What is the opposite of Quality?


Greetings, Mary --

... and welcome to the foray.

> Why do we need an Absolute Source?  Kind of negates
> the whole concept of the MoQ, doesn't it?

Not necessarily.  If "DQ" names the creative source of existence, is there 
any logical reason for this source to be conditional, relational, and 
divided into levels and patterns?  Does an Absolute Source contradict a 
Metaphysics of Quality?  Only if your answer is a definite "yes" can you 
conclude that positing an Absolute Source "negates" the MoQ concept.

Just for the record, I'm not an avid Pirsig fan.  I was initially drawn to 
this forum (and subsequently to the autjor's novels) because of the emphasis

on Value which figures prominantly in my own philosophy.  But I'm really an 
"outsider" who doesn't speak for the MoQ and is tolerated here mainly 
because many of the participants, like yourself, are seeking alternative 
views, while the charter members don't want to establish an "exclusionary" 
policy.

My major challenge to Pirsig is not his "metaphysics", as incomplete as it 
is, but the peculiar way in which he has coined the term "Quality" to 
connote an evolutionary driving force independently of
its realization by man.  Quality (or Value) is a measure of relative worth 
as judged by an observer.  The value of a thing or event depends on a 
value-sensible agent and a relational system against which to judge its 
value.  Without an observing subject no such appraisal is possible, and 
Value is not realized.

I believe most of the confusion stems from Pirsig's failure to acknowledge 
value-sensibility as the
essential factor in creating one's experiential reality.  His dismissal of 
the subjective self has forced the acolytes to go through handstands in 
order to account for consciousness, intellect, morality, and emotional 
feelings.

Consider the implications of your question:

> Why should there be any entity with unreferenced sensibility?
> What if Quality doesn't have a plan?  What if it just makes it up
> as it goes along?

You see, Mary, I can't address your question because it makes no sense to 
me.

How can an esthetic feeling devise a "plan"?  How can it proceed on its own 
without a sensible agent to realize it?  I don't know how imaginative you 
are, but I can't envision an "entity" called Quality that creates 
collections of patterns, one of them  human being, and "goes along" 
independently of its realization.  That may be a novelist's euphemism, but 
it simply isn't a credible metaphysical thesis.

I believe humans are "driven" (not "created") by Value, but only because we 
are born with an innate sensibility to it.  Value represents to us what we 
lack in essence, and therefore desire in existence.  WE convert this 
sensibility to experience which incrementally actualizes a relational 
"otherness" that becomes our life-long existence.  We are each living in our

own experiential universe, the "commonality" of which is assured by the 
absolute nature of its essential Source.

That's my Essentialism in a nutshell.  (Should you be interested, my 
philosophy is detailed in The Essentialist's Forum at 
www.essentialism.net/mechanic.htm.)  I'll admit that what I've developed is 
a non-hierarchical, anthropocentric concept.  The Pirsigians claim it's just

"unenlightened" subject/object metaphysics with a supernatural or 
"faith-based" twist.  But so far they have not accused me of negating the 
MoQ.  I'll let you decide.

Pleased to have your acquaintance, Mary, and thanks for giving me this 
opportunity to express an alternative view.

Essentially yours,
Ham

Moq_Discuss mailing list
Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
Archives:
http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/