[MD] Where have all the values gone?

[Ham Priday]

Hi Platt --

Sorry this reply has taken so long, but I was out of town for a few days to
attend my brother-in-law's funeral.

> I don't think we need to define words that refer to universal
> experiences, like fear, hunger, love, beauty and quality.

I don't think we need to define fear, hunger, love or beauty, because we
generally understand what these words mean when they come up in
conversation.  However, this is not always true of "quality" when it is used
in a Shakespearean phrase like "the quality of mercy", when one speaks of
the quality of a person or a monetary instrument, or when a philosopher like
Pirsig uses it to mean the essence of reality.  I think the same can be said
for the word "value".

> Pirsig explains the transcendent reality of quality by simply pointing out
> that we cannot imagine a world without it. His actual words were: "You
> cannot conceive of or live in a world in which nothing is better than
> anything else."

That does not explain quality as a transcendent reality to me.  Does the
author even refer to transcendency when discussing it?  When I've asked
whether DQ is a transcendent reality in these discussions, I've gotten mixed
responses.  Can you quote me a statement in which Pirsig asserts his belief
in a transcendent reality?

[Ham, previously]:
> Absolute principles are capable of being violated but not invalidated.

[Platt]:
> I always thought that once an absolute principle was violated,
> it was invalidated.

At the north pole, the sun doesn't necessarily set in the west.  Water can
be pumped uphill in a conduit.  People can behave in ways that they would
not will would become universal.  Thus, in a relational world, there are
contingencies that make it possible for universal principles to be violated.
Do these exceptions "invalidate" the principle?

But let's not quibble about "absolutes".

[Ham, previously]:
> Man is the "designer" of cultural morality.
> Who or what would you say is the designer of physical morality??

[Platt]:
> I have ano [?] open mind about the existence of an intelligent designer.
Like
> you I believe there are absolute principles that guide evolution toward
> betterness. But where those principles came from I cannot say.

Despite the typo, I assume you admit to having "an open mind" on the
question.  That leaves a rather large gap in your belief system, doesn't it?
I know you aren't speaking for Pirsig, but would you expect a philosopher to
admit to agnosticism, that is, to express ambiguity as to whether there is a
God or not?  I don't know of any classical philosopher, past or present, who
has refused to explain his theistic position or provide an ontology to
account for creation.

I've searched the recent Baggini interview for a question to Pirsig
addressing this subject.  There was none, which reflects badly on the
interviewer, in my opinion.  However, there was an exchange in which Baggini
justifiably interrogates the author concerning the basic metaphysical
premise supporting his Quality theory.  This provided a perfect opportunity
for Pirsig to clarify his position.

BAGGINI: Of course, many systems have pairs, trios, quartets and so forth of
concepts. But it seems perfectly reasonable to classify metaphysical systems
as monist or dualist on the basis of how many basic substances they believe
the universe most fundamentally comprises.

PIRSIG: The "Quality" of the Metaphysics of Quality is not a basic
substance, or anything like it. The Buddhists call it "nothingness"
precisely to avoid that kind of intellectual characterization. Once you
start to define Quality as a basic substance you are off on a completely
different path from the MOQ.

It seems to me that the Baggini was not asking Pisig to name a basic
substance, but to define the fundamental constituent(s) of the MoQ.
Pirsig's response was to deny that Quality was a "substance", and then to
evade the question by insinuating that the interviewer was pushing him "off
on a completely different path."  Rather than become indignant at the
direction this interview was moving, why didn't the author use this
opportunity to expand on his concept of Quality as the fundamental reality?
It was certainly the author's option to do so -- particularly since the Q&A
session, as I understand it, was by e-mail.  I found Pirsig's performance
here very disappointing, as was his reaction to a similar suggestion from
his wife: "Why don't you tell Baggini what the Metaphysics of Quality says?"
"Why doesn't Baggini ask?" Pirsig responded.

Just for the record, should there still be some question about my own
position, I do not believe in an anthropomorphic deity and do not consider
myself a theist, although I do believe that Essence is "supernatural" (i.e,
incapable of being defined in finite terms).  While "intelligence" is a
human attribute, I believe it is not inconsistent to apply this term to a
design or scheme of things that suggests an "intelligent creator" to the
human intellect.

And I have no apprehension about applying the word "transcendent" to this
creator.

Essentially still yours,
Ham