[MD] Reading & Incomprehension

[Ham Priday]

Dear John --


[Ham, previously]:
> "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.

[John]:
> See, where you'd say "separate and distinct", I'd say
> necessarily relational and intertwined.

I've never heard a deist claim to be "intertwined" with God, and the only 
"relation"
expressed by Christian believers is one with a personalized 'Savior'. 
Inasmuch as Pirsigians reject the subjective self, it is hard to conceive of 
"interactive patterns" having any direct bearing on individual cognizance.

> 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.

Evolution is an empirical precept based on the time/space mode of human 
experience.  Since we experience things coming into and passing out of 
existence, the reality we perceive is "evolutionary", and we intellectually 
deduce that the universe moves from alpha (the Big Bang) to omega (a state 
of entropy).  But there is no metaphysical justification for subjecting the 
uncreated source to the conditions of empirical existence.  Whether you 
conceive this source as God, Quality, or Essence, it is the "unmoved mover".

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

[John]:
> 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.

John, to consider ontogeny from a pragmatic perspective is reducing it to 
objectivism, just as imputing a "beginning and end" to the primary source 
(as above) is an anthromorphic conception.  "Before" and "after" is a 
chicken-and-egg paradox that simply doen't apply to metaphysical reality, 
whether "pragmatically convenient" or not.

I agree that Value is "primary" to existence, but only in the sense that 
existence is its experiential derivative.  Individual subjects are NOT 
ontologically prior, however.  Sensibility is prior because it is 
irretrievably linked by Value to Otherness, Sensibility/Otherness being the 
primary existential dichotomy.  "Individuation" of value-sensibility into 
proprietary "selves" (beings-aware) is the "actualized" product of this 
primary dichotomy.  (In temporal terms, differentiation/individuation is 
"secondary" to the Sensibility/Otherness division.)

[Ham]:
> ...The Quality of the MOQ does not represent man's sensibility,
> cannot replace God, and functions solely to create existential patterns.

[John]:
> 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.

"Creating patterns" is a meaningless term for me, and making evolution the 
Creator is even more meaningless.  That's what is so frustrating about the 
Quality hierarchy.  It's nothing but a euphemistic representation of the 
universe dissected into levels and patterns.  Where is the potentiality or 
progenitor of this patterned system we call existence?  How do we relate to 
it?  What does it have to do with the value or meaning of my life?   If 
everything automatically moves to "betterness" and all our ideas about 
morality are pulled out of a cosmic realm, what possible purpose does our 
participation serve?  Surely individual freedom and human advancement 
account for more than "pattern formation" explains.

> And isn't DQ as I explain it that very transcendent source you
> claim the MoQ precludes?
>
> And patterns of valuistic relationship is a very good
> representation of man's sensibility.

DQ, as I understand it, is essential Value realized by the cognizant 
subject.  As such, it is not "transcendent" but immanent to the observer and 
the ground of his/her experience.  Value is not a "source" but, rather, the 
affinity of the finite subject for its Absolute Source.  It is man himself, 
not Quality, that moves the world to betterness.
Until the Pirsigians acknowledge that their "Quality = Value" concept is 
experientially derived from an uncreated source, the MoQ will never replace 
religion or spiritualism as a guide to human behavior.

> 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.

See, this is the kind of statement that has turned me off Qualityism. 
Quality doesn't "generate" anything.  It doesn't contain ideas or create 
stories.  It is not the fount of intellect or a moral compass for mankind. 
Quality (Value) is man's realization of something greater than himself. 
It's our relative measure of goodness or worth in a world of diversity.  Man 
is a free agent of value.  One's particular value orientation is what causes 
him to discriminate in his choice of responses, to prioritize his efforts in 
achieving life's goals.

> 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.

What you say is true, but only in "the sense" that Value fuels the spiritual 
need of man, causing him to believe in God.  Your sentiments are noteworthy, 
John, despite the deficiency of your ontogeny.

Essentially yours,
Ham