[MD] The difference between a Monet and a finger painting

[Ham Priday]

Hello Mary --

On 1/24 at 2:31 PM you quoted portions of Baggini's interview with Pirsig, 
adding this comment:


> The thing is, science is not setup properly to answer the "whys".
> It cannot do it and never will.  This is Pirsig's point.  The
> metaphysical underpinning for all of science is lacking the ability
> to do so.  SOM LACKS THE ABILITY TO ANSWER THE
> "WHYS".  If you base your world-view on SOM, then value is
> just "whatever you like".  It has no solid meaning and cannot be
> measured in a laboratory.  To try to use science to answer "why"
> will, if taken to its logical conclusion, result in his last sentence:
> "he will find himself drifting eventually toward the solutions
> arrived at by the Metaphysics of Quality."

Science draws conclusions from empirical investigation, controlled 
experimentation, and confirmation of the results by universal replication of 
the experiments.  The methodology is designed to answer "what" the 
phenomenon is and what are its causes (i.e., "how" it occurs, based on 
causal reasoning.)   It is not designed to answer "why?" or to discover the 
purpose or meaning of a phenomenon in terms of an ultimate cause or source 
(teleology).

Pirsig's assertion that a biologist asked to define the meaning of "survival 
of the fittist" in scientific terms "will give up or...come up with nonsense 
or... find himself drifting eventually toward the solutions arrived at by 
the Metaphysics of Quality," is somewhat self-serving on the author's part. 
Most likely, rather than "come up with nonsense", the biologist will develop 
a hypothesis to explain the biological advantage of "fitness" in 
evolutionary terms.  I see no evidence that failure to either confirm the 
cause or theorize the phenomenon will necessarily lead the investigator to 
conclusions "arrived at by the Metaphysics of Quality."

But I was puzzled by what seemed to me an ingenuous comment: "If you base 
your world-view on SOM, then value is just 'whatever you like'."  I assume 
you are the same Mary who ends evey post with the axiom "The most important 
thing you will ever make is a realization."  Isn't "what you like" your 
realization of value?  Indeed, how can we know value other than as a 
realization?  Value-sensibility, as I have defined it, IS primary 
realization.  While this may be the SOM view, it also happens to be the 
perspective of human beings living in and interacting with a physical world.

Sometimes I think the Pirsigians are led to believe that Value exists 
independently of subjective sensibility or experience.  Since epistemology 
does not support such a concept, why should a philosophy?  As I have 
repeatedly said, unrealized Value is an oxymoron.

Best regards,
Ham