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

[Ham Priday]

David, Mark, Krimel, Arlo and All --


[Mark to Krimel on 1/26]:
> I may be wrong, but I believe Pirsig would answer the
> question of "why survive?" by saying "because those are
> the demands of Quality."

[Ham on 1/28]:
> I'm afraid that's how he would have to answer it.
> Such an answer reduces human sensibility to a tail wagged
> by Quality.  ...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.

[Mark on 1/28]:
> 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 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.

[Ham on 1/29]:
> 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.

[David chimes in]:
> I was listening to the CBC "Understanding Science" in one of them
> there was a discussion about the problems that arises from the
> misunderstanding of "agency" and assigning it exclusively to humans.
> In this case they were comparing the agency of  bacteria that
> change their "behavior" based on the introduction of antibiotics.
> How does this fit into your views?

[Arlo joins him]:
> While I doubt it fits Ham's views, I'd say that this in accord with
> the MOQ. "Agency", quite simply, could be seen as the ability to
> respond to experience. ...Bacteria lack the "agency" to build
> airplanes because their biological structure does not support
> social patterns, and hence they ipso facto lack the possibility to
> respond to experience "intellectually". Humans, of course,
> have a very diverse and deep "response repertoire" to draw
> from, while inorganic patterns have the least complex and varied.

Certainly bacteria and fungi can be "agents" of organo-chemical change.  So 
can household bleach, for that matter.  The term I was defining on 1/29 is 
"subjective agency", which has a very specific connotation; namely, 
CONSCIOUS ACTION in response to Value.  This describes the intellect's power 
to effect a desired result based on value-sensibility, and it is power 
unique to human beings..

If we dismiss the subjective agency of man, we deny his sensibility, 
integrity, and individual freedom, not to mention the meaning of his 
existence.  If (as Pirsig would have us believe), morality and the good 
behavior are "demands" imposed on us by an extracorporeal  "force" called 
Quality, there is no reason for a subjective agency at all, apart from 
completing the evolutionary process of Nature.

Frankly, I have problems understanding a philosophy that purports to guide 
human society by "intellectual enlightenment" while at the same time denying 
the freedom and autonomy of the cognizant agent.

Essentially speaking,
Ham