[MD] Reading & Incomprehension

[John Carl]

Hey Ham,  catching up... catching up...

On Thu, Jun 10, 2010 at 11:02 PM, Ham Priday <hampday1 at verizon.net> wrote:

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.
>
>


See, where you'd say "separate and distinct", I'd say necessarily relational
and intertwined.

Where you describe Pirsigian Quality as an "evolving force", I'd describe it
as an evolutionary force - that which drives the evolving "forward".  The
anti-entropy force that science can't conceptualize quite yet.

(but its trying, so... yay science)


>
> I've said many times before that "quality", as commonly understood, does
> not exist without an observer to "measure" it.



Yes you have.  And your doing so deserves good answers.  Note that
previously I mentioned "intertwined"  This is because of your point about
values (insofar as I understand the term) do not exist without a subject.
 Agreed.

But you must admit, that a subject cannot logically exist without value,
either.  The differentiation of subject from object is a value-consideration
in itself.  The question you want to apply to them both, is which came
first?  You say the subject because you're stuck on your self.

I mean that literally, not insultingly!

The question I'd posit to you is how this formulation works better for you,
pragmatically considered?

Making the subject, ontologically prior, I mean.




>  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.
>
>
Well... first off, what's the functional difference between "functions
creative of existential patterns" and God?   Cuz where I'm sitting, I don't
see much difference between those two.

And isn't DQ as I explain it that very transcendant source you claim the MoQ
precludes?

And patterns of valuistic relationship is a very good representation of
man's sensibility.

What MoQ are you reading, anyway?  Have you been listening to dave again?



>>
> 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.
>
>

Well I consider most Christians to be in service of the evil one, so I don't
really care what they reject or accept.  Except to use it as a handy
reverse-barometer!

And I don't think Quality is synonomous with God.  The Name "God" with all
its connotations to our culture, is the result of a story.  I believe
Dynamic Quality generated that story, generated all those conceptualizations
of God.  And this means more than mere randomness.

It means there is some unknowable, creative force that brings us to
realizations and is anti-entropic and generates all kinds of various
religious experience throughout the world.  Quality creates God, in a sense.
 And yeah, I think most Christians would burn me at the stake over that one.

Take care, Ham.

Heretical John