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

[ARLO J BENSINGER JR]

[Mark]
Yes, everything is an analogy.  And, that is not a bad thing, it is just an
analogy.

[Arlo]
I think we are, then, in agreement of the starting point of all symbolically
encoded descriptions of reality. 

The question then becomes, "which analogy/analogies are better?"

I've already suggested one rubric to consider this, when we talked about the
"geological" versus "angry god" accounts of the Haitian earthquake, and that is
which allows us to better mediate and/or ameliorate our experiences in the
world?

The "geologic analogy", if you will, allows us to build buildings that can
withstand quakes of certain scales, to predict to certain degrees where/when,
to locate areas of heightened probability, etc. Added into the larger "geologic
analogy" body of information we can greatly improve the human condition
compared to a time when a "god analogy" was the prevailing lens. "Climateology"
allows us to redirect cruise ships, alter the course of airplanes, prepare
medical and emergency response, etc. 

Admittedly, this is is a larger socio-economic context that does not always
heed nor pay attention to anything but greed and profit (e.g. Hurricane
Katrina). But these "analogies" still provide us with better mediation and
amelioration than believing that Hurricanes are caused by pissed-off
Leprechauns.

If you were moving in an apartment building in San Francisco, which analogy
would serve you better? Would you prefer a landlord to say "this building was
built using the most recent architectural methods to withstand geologic
tremors" or "this building was blessed by a priest so god will protect it when
he sends the next earthquake here to punish the rabble"? Would you prefer
following an alert channel that sounded the earliest possible warning to deep
geological activity, or to a channel where a preacher warned of impending
punishment by god?

A second rubric, as others have suggested, is adaptability. Analogies need a
degree of fluidity to self-correct as better analogies are developed. This is
not to say that analogies should change on a whim either. "Geological
analogies" to understand earthquakes tend to evolve, change or die as better
analogies are developed. "Angry god" analogies tend to be very static, and are
held often in deliberate contrariness to experience. But here we can just ask,
"which "analogies" show more adaptability?"

This is, of course, not to say that the present-day "geological analogy" is
perfect, or "the best" we can ever hope for. I think the second rubric
demonstrates this. And I think Pirsig's criticisms are valid ways of improving
the overall analogies Western Culture has embraced.

This is also not to say there is NO value whatsoever in "angry god analogies"
of earthquakes. Historically, such beliefs bound societies, fostered inclusion
and ensured conformity in the absence of civil law. (I'm not talking overall
"theistic analogies" here, just aspects of an "angry god punishes via
earthquakes" analogy). Obviously, this analogy holds great value to Pat
Robertson, but I'd suspect this has more to do with his role consolidating a
power-base for his church than anything else. To that goal, the "angry god"
analogy is quite valuable.