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

[Ham Priday]

Hey, Mark --


> For some (MoQ?), reality is: being in the presence of a greater
> power. This is not unfounded since gravity seems to be pretty
> widespread (at least so I'm told). If such a force is used as a basis,
> then one seeks to describe such a force, Ie. Quality. Once such a
> thing is described, everything else is fit in.  Pirsig would be the
> first to say, that it cannot be described, only experienced.
> However such belief still requires some outside force.

Okay, I know you want to be conciliatory towards Pirsig.  But Quality (as 
Value) is not a "force", so your gravitational analogy is misplaced. 
Quality doesn't create anything; it's a measure of a thing's worth or value 
to the sensible subject.  We (as subjects) immanently sense the value of 
whatever we experience relative to everything else.  If quality were not 
relative it would be meaningless.  Take away the objects of our experience 
and value (or quality) disappears.  Experiential existence is designed so 
that a sensible agent can realize the value of its Source on a comparative 
scale from bad to good, mundane to magnificent, etc.  To realize value 
(quality) a cognizant subject must relate to an ordered system of 
representative objects.  The universe is such a system, and we are its 
sensible agents.

> I haven't felt that Pirsig denies the subjective agent, but only that
> this subjective agent is part of a much larger plan (without 
> intelligence).
> If indeed, the denial of essence is used as the fundamental building
> block, one still has to ascribe to a larger plan, since we all seem to
> negate essence in the same way.

A subjective agent without intelligence (cognitive awareness) is a misnomer. 
"Subject" is defined as "the mind, ego, or agent that sustains or assumes 
the form of thought or consciousness."  So, again, unless the terms 
"quality" and "subject" are strained by capricious definitions to suit the 
author's purpose, their common epistemological meaning is inconsistent with 
the MoQ thesis.

> The tail wagging the dog is accurate, if one supposes that individual
> sensibility is part of a much larger thing. That is, our ultimate 
> expression
> is under the rule of certain laws. Quality attempts to explain what those
> rules are from the standpoint of morality. So indeed, we are being
> wagged, but this does not deny personal responsibility.

I beg to differ, Mark.  If personal responsibililty embraces valuistic 
judgments such as moral decisions, integrity, justice and compassion, the 
individual must be free to exercise these judgments.  But when you say we 
survive and behave "because those are the demands of Quality", you are 
suggesting that we're predetermined to act in accordance with the fixed laws 
of Nature.  This is a denial of the freedom that makes personal 
responsibility possible.

Essentially speaking,
Ham

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

On 1/26 at 8:38PM, you said to Krimel:


> I may be wrong, but I believe Pirsig would answer the question
> of "why survive?" by saying "because those are the demands of
> Quality".

I'm afraid that's how he would have to answer it. And such an answer
reduces human sensibility to a tail wagged by Quality. The absurdity of
this convoluted ontology seems to have escaped Krimel. If Quality (Value)
"evolves to goodness" for its own sake, morality is fixed by Nature and man
is only an anomalous "pattern" in the evolutionary process. This makes the
individual life an automaton of the Source and denies meaning or purpose for
the life experience.

For the life of me, I fail to see how a philosophy that rejects the
subjective agent can offer spiritual or moral guidance to mankind. The best
moral axiom that can be drawn from the MoQ is "some things are better than
others". Since, in the last analysis, Quality's progression to Goodness is
automatic, the implied "directive" of a self-serving universe would seem to
be simply: "Go with the flow." Why do Pirsigians continue to parse the
"levels" of Quality for a more meaningful answer when no other analysis is
possible?

--Ham

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _


[Krimel]
I don't think that "satisfaction" is a criterion for truth. It is a happy
coincidence when knowledge makes us happy but I fear that often it is just a
sign that we are on the wrong path. I think it is true that I will die one
day but I don't find that terribly satisfying. If all you want is beliefs
that make you happy why not drop the pretext and take up painting?

Science may not be the only path to truth or knowledge but I do think that
other paths are in many ways subservient to science. One can't seriously
advance a philosophy that claims that the earth is only 10,000 years old.
Although that is the position advanced by the ICR and taught to students at
private Christian schools. I for one think inflicting these ideas on
children is a form of child abuse.