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

[Ham Priday]

Mark --

Okay, here's where we differ. . .


> 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.

There are several problems with this analysis.

First of all, if we're talking about the objective world, randomness and 
determinism are not the only alternatives.  For example, there is the 
possibility of "nothingness", or a combination of nothingness and beingness. 
There could be chaos, or its organization into an ordered system.  There 
could also be the evolution of randomness toward an "intended" goal, also 
called "teleology" (except for Pirsig who calls it Quality moving to 
"betterness").  Also, you are confusing "free will", which is the capacity 
for choosing the values we act upon, with the laws of physics which apply 
only to inanimate processes.

Finally, if (as I believe) the physical universe is a construct of man's 
value-sensibility, its order, design and dynamics are representative 
phenomena of human intelligence, in which case the terms "randomness" and 
"determinism" are meaningless.  For, if we cannot predict what the future 
will bring, how can we possibly know that our "free choices" are not 
predetermined?

> 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.

You've lost me here, Mark.  What is the "it" you refer to that makes sense 
to you?
What is the "statistical level"?  (I missed that one in Pirsig's hierarchy.) 
What does Quality have to do with prophecy and outcome prediction?  Unless 
you attribute a teleological role to Quality (which suggests "divine 
intent") I don't see it as a valid argument.

Nor can I accept the speculations in your last paragraph.

> 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.

Yhay values drive mankind and determine the course of history does not lead 
to the conclusion that consciousness exists at every level.  I suggest that 
the "consciousness at every level" is your own, not that of the phenomena 
you experience subjectively.  A "collective expression of consciousness", 
like collective intelligence, is not a subject.  The order of existence is a 
dualism consisting of individualized awareness versus pluralistic being.  As 
Ayn Rand said, there is no such thing as a "collective" mind, subject, or 
intellect.  All consciousness and experience is proprietary to the 
individual.  Value sensibility is your "subjective nature", not the nature 
of the experienced world.

Needless to say, I liked your earlier post much better.

Better luck next time,
Ham

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

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