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

[John Carl]

Ham,


>  the Truth Fairy appears,
>
> I don't deny that there is a metaphysical Source of Value, which is also
> the source of all physical appearances.  Since Mr. Pirsig claims his MoQ is
> "anti-theistic", it may not be obvious to everyone that he has coined
> Quality as an aphorism to avoid reference to a Creator or primary source.
> However, the relational term "value" or "quality" cannot logically be
> applied to an absolute.  It has always seemed to me that the DQ concept,
> despite its "evolutionary progression to betterness", equates to God in a
> spiritualistic sense.  And it's apparent here that I'm not alone in that
> opinion.
>
>
Well Ham, he did mention "God" and "Good" in the same breath in ZAMM, but
God is an undefinable concept, just like Quality and while all cultures have
at their roots, a belief about God or Gods, Pirsig is unique in giving us a
term of comparison by which we can evaluate which "God" is the "Goodest".  -
that is, a provisional conception which grows as we do.

To my mind, he provides not only a reintroduction of value as a socially
acceptable topic, he gives it a solid framework for further conversation.

And speaking of conversation, I was hunting around for one I was having with
you, and somehow I misplaced it.  What I want to refer back to was your
assertion that I wasn't finished at existentialism.  Coincidentally, I came
to a place in my Roycean reading that very day which confirmed your
proposition, that the titanic or defiant self is along the path, but not the
destination of my evolutionary being.

So go ahead, feel smug.  You earned it.


>  To observe is to experience objectively, usually with some degree of
> intellect.


I agree that  Objectivity is intellectual, but  observation can be
non-objective and non-intellectual.  For instance, an observer can get so
carried away by an experience, a rock concert, an opera, that intellectual
objectivity disappears, is melded in a sense of a mass social becoming.
 People seek this kind of experience out, assign it a high value and
encourage it with drug use.



> As an observer, I create my reality by experiencing what is not me
> (otherness).



"Create" is a little strong to my thinking.  I prefer   "Choose" because it
 implies a variety of otherness from which to choose, but I do agree that my
choice of perceived reality is a creative choice..



> I do not create my self or my sensibility.  I was never clear as to who
> wrote Lila's Child, but the author's theory seems to be that "observation"
> arose from "nothing" to create existence.  I find this
> ontogeny deeply flawed.



Who wouldn't?  Postulating nothingness as the basis of being is morOnistic.




> Steve, while I can appreciate RMP as an accomplished writer and novelist, I
> don't regard metaphysics as an art form.  Judging a philosopher by these
> criteria demeans Philosophy.  It's not like trying on a shoe.  I hope you
> don't think I'm gullible enough to believe everything a gifted novelist sets
> in print.
>
>
Ham, you are too much for words.   I hope you don't think we are gullible
enough to believe everything a gifted obfuscater textualizes, digitizes and
electronically transmits.


John your biggest fan, unfortunate then that debate is not won with girth.