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

[markhsmit]

On Jan 29, 2010, at 12:23:59 AM, "Ham Priday" <hampday1 at verizon.net> wrote:
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
Hi Ham,
I have truncated your post, not to diminish its value (which it has),
but with the understanding that both of us know how we got here.
As with any discussion, the branches in direction are numerous.

Where I differ from you is in the understanding of the subjective agency.
If we assume a reality of randomness (the other choice is determinism)
I have to assume choice at every level.  All the way from choosing one's
way home from work to the flipping coin.  I am unable to accept that
somehow choice appeared in man by some divine intervention.
The opposite of this would be a predetermined coin flip to a deterministic
setting of events throughout the day which dictate our thoughts.
There is nothing in between free will and determinism.

If I am able to accept choice in all things, "it" much more makes sense to me.
I am with you in terms of the lack of guide at the individual level.
However, at the statistical level some outline of predetermination comes
in.  Quality could possibly reveal the outcome of many
individual events.  In this way, Quality could be bucketed into levels
which have meaning.  This is not saying that Quality dictates the outcome
of events, because it doesn't, but it does provide guidance at a 
higher level.  By semantic argument, therefore, Quality shapes
events and overall outcomes.

>From this comes the assumption of consciousness at every level.  From the
individual to the collective.  As Quality proposes, this consciousness
tends to reveal itself in forms.  I do not agree with the hierarchy as
proposed by some, which elevates the intellect to a high level, but
I do agree in the collective expression of consciousness, that is
from a river or a brain.  The subjective nature of this experience
is beyond the scope of this post.

Cheers,
Mark