[MD] Is Quality a Value?

[Platt Holden]

Hi Ham, 

> You suggest that Pirsig's Quality is the "transcendent force" behind
> existence, the source of all things, whose "only perceived good is freedom
> and its only perceived evil is static quality itself -- any pattern of
> one-sided fixed values that tries to contain and kill the ongoing free
> force of life."
> 
> Why do you limit goodness to freedom?   What about the Beauty that you
> idolize?  Is that not also a "perceived good" of the source?

Freedom allows for the coalescence of elements into units that reflect Beauty,
like the freedom of a composer to use a combination of notes to create a
beautiful symphony. 

> Could you
> define, ideally with an example, what Pirsig meant by "a pattern of
> one-sided fixed values"?

Sure. All natural forms such as a bear, and all physical laws such as the 
law of gravity, and all mathematical truths such as 2+2=4.  

> It would appear that any division (patterning) of Quality, is a reduction
> of its goodness.  Does that mean that my acceptance of physical reality as
> a subject/object duality consisting of a multitude of things is more "evil"
> or immoral than the mystic experience of Oneness?

To put your view another way, any division of Quality is a reduction of
perfection. To that I would agree. Your "acceptance of physical reality" is to
accept the less than perfect. Yes, in that sense, it is more "evil" than 
the mystic experience of Oneness or perfection. It is the human condition, 
unfortunately, to have to settle for less than perfection. You know it 
exist, but also know you can never attain it. Such is life. Some whine and 
complain about it and dream of Utopias. Most of us get over it.  

> Do you believe your
> experience of, or passion for, Beauty or Freedom resolves this duality in
> some mystical way?

Beauty, yes. Freedom, no. Beauty is the only value I know of that strikes 
the senses directly. If the Beauty is great, it can for a time destroy 
one's separate self sense in real time. Other values, such as perfection 
and freedom, can only be imagined, although we can recognize when 
something comes close to a state of freedom or perfection. 

> > By the way, are you going to answer my question about
> > where your standards of morality come from?
> > Are they written on a stone tablet, or established by polls?
> > Or what?
> 
> I don't see standards of morality as a Divine Goodness in the sense that
> Beauty and Freedom are.  If they were, we wouldn't need Moses' Commandments
> to show us how to be good.  Morality is a social code invented by humans as
> a means of controlling the excesses and offenses of social behavior.

If invented by humans, then humans can change the code. Being a human, I 
can change the code. So can you. So can the guy over there behind the 
tree. Is this what you mean? What human authority determines the the 
excesses and offenses of social behavior? Not Bin Laden I hope. 

> Although I'm a "traditionalist", I believe that moral standards carved in
> stone can be detrimental to the exercise of individual freedom.  That's why
> I side with clergymen and Libertarians on this issue, on the grounds that
> morality is relative and that moral sanctions must conform to the changing
> conditions of an evolving society in a relational world.

So headhunting among some tribes in Borneo is morally OK with you? Or 
setting off bombs in trains in an effort to make the world a more "moral" 
place? I hope that's not what you mean, but your "morality is relative" 
statement leads me to that conclusion.

> > My cat gives every evidence that he is aware (conscious)
> >  when he's not sleeping (unconscious). Awareness is the
> > "within" of all creatures great and small, right down to
> > what you call "insensate" atoms. The question for you
> > is how awareness "emerges" from things, like atoms,
> > that you claim are awareless.
> 
> I agree that all living creatures have some level of conscious awareness,
> and this, too, serves the essential "valuation" purpose.  Animals, however,
> are not self-determinant beings; they are not free to choose their values,
> but respond instinctively to externally perceived conditions.  (I won't
> even touch the notion of atoms making value decisions.)

Again, how does awareness arise from non-awareness?. 

> > DQ creates what we deem to be the physical universe,
> > what we deem to have created it (the process of evolution)
> > and the experience of it. DQ, together with SQ, accounts
> > for everything.
> 
> This is not entirely clear to me Platt, and that's surprising coming from
> you.  Could you restate this assertion, explaining what you mean by "what
> we deem to have created it (the process of evolution)"?   You realize, of
> course, that I do not understand evolution to be the creator of my
> existence.

You don't believe you evolved from lower animal forms? Do you believe man 
suddenly appeared on earth, fully formed? Like Adam? 

What I'm saying is that whatever processes we think created the world and 
everything that's in it, including you and me, their ultimate cause is DQ 
together with SQ as explained in Pirsig's metaphysics.  

> Also, you have not answered my question as to how Quality is distinguished
> from Value.

As I  aid in quoting Pirsig, they're the same. They are interchangeable..

Best,
Platt