[MD] Where have all the values gone?

[Platt Holden]

Hi Ham, 

> > 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".

I see no reason why the essence of reality cannot be expressed in conversational
English with common words describing everyday experience. Even my cat knows the
meaning of value, quality and the difference between right and wrong. Philosophy need
not be restricted to verbiage used by the old graybeards of the past, nor to those
steeped in philosophical history. IMO, one's philosophical views should be
transparent to a broad audience rather than a select few in the cloistered halls of
academe. I attribute much of Pirsig's popularity to his use of the common tongue.

> > 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?

I think we are using "transcendent" differently. You may mean "extending beyond
limits of ordinary experience." If so, then you're quite correct in saying Pirsig's
quality is not transcendent since it is no different than ordinary experience. I
meant that quality was everywhere in everything. Perhaps a better word would be
"intrinsic."

> [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".

I was thinking about physical and mathematical laws such as the Heisenberg's
Uncertainty Principle.

> [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.

Well, not being a classical philosopher, I feel I can be excused. :-)

> 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.

My reaction was, "Ask a stupid question you'll get a stupid answer." Maybe it's
because Pirsig's concept of Quality as fundamental reality is so simple that it
completely throws off academic interviewers who thrive on complexity. Quality is just
your everyday, ordinary experience.

> 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.

Have you answered the question where this creator of yours came from? I think it's
because I can't answer that question that I have resorted to my "open mind" stance on
the question of intelligent design and existence of a designer. 

Best regards,
Platt





-------------------------------------------------
This mail sent through IMP: http://horde.org/imp/