[MD] Is Quality a Value?

[Ham Priday]

Platt, Arlo, and all in pursuit of Quality --

It has been some time since Quality has been discussed here in a definitive
way, and I would suspect that some MoQers have questioned Pirsig's almost
synonomous use of Quality and Value.  I joined this forum having developed a
"valuistic philosophy" of Essence, and I tried to elicit a response from Mr.
Pirsig as to what he considered the difference between these terms.  Thus
far no one has made the distinction clear to me.

In a recent note to Platt, Arlo cites his preference for Quality as "the
source of all things", but concedes that other designations for the primary
source are possible:

> I think evolution that created humans and their capacity to think came
> from Quality, the source of all things. Call it Essence, God, Big Self,
> The Source -- whatever you like. I prefer Quality because it presumes
> that values--dynamic and static--were immanent from the start, as I'm
> convinced they were by the explanatory power of the MOQ.

Well, if "values were immanent from the start" -- and I would ask "immanent
for whom?" -- then would not Value be a more fitting name for the source
than Quality?  Arlo also thinks "evolution created humans and their capacity
to think", which (according to my thinking capacity anyway) dismisses the
primary function of the source: that of Creator.  Clearly, there is a great
deal of confusion about the nature of Quality and the epistemology by which
man realizes it.

By way of encouraging clarity in our dialectics, let me pose some questions
that have troubled me:

1)  Is it more logical to say that the essential nature of reality is
Quality rather than Essence?

2)  Is it epistemologically accurate to assert that Quality is
"pre-intellectual"?

3)  If the primary source is Quality, is it perceived as Value in
experience?

4)  Assuming that there is an Absolute Source, would that source not possess
Value, whether experienced or not?

Platt often reminds us of his love for Beauty, and we both experience
pleasure in listening to music.  I've suggested that man's passion for
esthetic delights of this kind is a response to their Value.  Beauty,
harmony, symmetry, goodness -- these are all values realized by man's
psycho-somatic sensibility.  While, we may assess the "empirical quality" of
such values intellectually, the valuistic nature of these experiences is
more sensual than intellectual.

Now, I'd like to introduce a new concept for discussion.  This is based on
Essentialism but has not previously been suggested, to my knowledge.  (I
expect Platt to promptly refer me to a source that proves it has.)

Since you all seem to accept Quality as the Source (creative or otherwise),
what about the idea that the primary difference is a metaphysical separation
of values?  I submit that "sensible awareness" is a value.  And since the
beingness we all know as "beings-aware" is our very reality, the property of
"being" is also a value.  In other words, we treasure life because we
realize that without it we would be denied awareness of being -- our most
valuable asset.

I'm suggesting that awareness and beingness are "conditional values" of the
primary source (Essence), which is itself the absolute embodiment Value.
Creation, then, may be posited as the experiential separation of sensible
awareness from substantive beingness, both values representing what is "not
other" to the essential source.

Does anyone want to debunk this ontology on the ground that is too
"theistic" or contradictory to the Quality thesis?   Will someone find
sufficient value in this concept to actually want to explore it?

I humbly await your reaction.

Essentially yours,
Ham