[MD] Reading & Incomprehension

[Ham Priday]

Hi John --


> I am also enjoying this dialogue.  I would just like to put
> one query to you:
>
> On Thu, Jun 10, 2010 at 1:08 PM, Ham Priday wrote:
>
>> Excellent!  Pirsig's Quality is like the God of religion,
>> since neither is regarded as intrinsic to the subjective
>> Knower.
>
> My query is, "what do you think 'intrinsic' means?"
>
> My dictionary goes like this:
>
> belonging naturally; essential : access to the arts is intrinsic
> to a high quality of life. See note at inherent .• (of a muscle)
> contained wholly within the organ on which it acts.
>
> See, by that definition I disagree with your denigration of
> both Quality and the god of religion. Tho I throw a bow
> in the direction of your "essential"

John, I debated with myself whether to use "intrinsic" or "inherent", not 
wanting to force "essential" on the Pirsigians.  (I also considered 
"immanent".)  But, by your definition, intrinsic fits.  This statement is 
not meant to denigrate quality or the God concept.  My point is that, unlike 
"Essence", which could also be regarded as the "nature" of both subjects and 
objects, "Quality" (as used by Pirsig) is an evolving cosmic force, just as 
God is a divine being for the theist.  Both entities are conceived as 
independent, that is, separate and distinct from the subjective self.

> For Quality, it is simply true that the same pull toward complexity
> that runs counter to the randomizing, entropy of the cosmos, that
> created everything is also the force I sense in myself that recognizes
> this pattern-making harmonizer. Thus the man within is
> microcosmic of the reality without, bound by this undefinable
> that we spend our lives defining that Pirsig terms "Quality" and
> I think he does a very good job of it.

I've said many times before that "quality", as commonly understood, does not 
exist without an observer to "measure" it.  The same could be said for 
"value".  In an attempt to overcome duality and promote a monistic source, 
Pirsig posited Quality as an aesthetic phenomenon that not only defies 
epistemological understanding but that he refuses to define.  Moreover, by 
describing his unique quality as evolutionary, he has precluded the 
possibility of a metaphysical (i.e., transcendent) source.  As a result, the 
Quality of the MOQ does not represent man's sensibility, cannot replace God, 
and functions solely to create existential patterns.

> For Religion, I say much the same. As scripture testifies of God
> as the one "In whom we move and breathe and have our being".
>
> Which sounds about as intrinsic as you can get.

I would say more pantheistic than intrinsic.  Since you seem to be defending 
deism, John, can you accept "Quality" as a connotation for God or a Supreme 
Being?  Most of the Christians I know would reject that idea, particularly 
if they knew that the author considered the MOQ to be an atheistic 
philosophy.

But thanks for your thoughts, John.

Best regards,
Ham