[MD] Where have all the values gone?

[Ham Priday]

Good day, Platt --

> 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.

Indeed, I am working toward that greatly to be desired objective.  You must
realize, however, that it isn't easy to express conceptual ideas that have
no empirical equivalent in universal language.  Initially my goal was to put
an "academic" manuscript on-line in an organized fashion, using what graphic
devices were available to provide some non-verbal support.  Although I now
see the necessity to reach a broader audience, and am attempting to simplify
the entire exposition, certain concepts remain to be developed more
coherently (in my own mind) before they can be reduced to a colloquial-style
dissertation.  I commend Pirsig for his verbal and conceptual skills, but it
is my personal belief that the novel is not the proper vehicle for
communicating philosophical ideas based on metaphysical concepts.

> 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."

I think your author has been unduly influenced by the apparent simplicity of
Zen and Buddhistic writings which are more concerned with teaching a "mental
attitude" toward life than a belief system founded on metaphysical precepts.
The fact that I can't conceive of living in anything but a relativistic
world is not an excuse for dismissing the "how" and "why" of it.  Without
such a theory, philosophy is reduced to moral platitudes,
anthropological-based speculation, and what Pirsig himself calls
"philosophology".

> 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."

"Intrinsic" won't do; "immanent" might.  I use "transcendent" in the
conventional sense to designate what lies beyond the experiential (physical)
world.  I think you understand it to mean a kind of pantheism in which the
whole represents the sum of its parts.  This holistic view borrows heavily
from Eastern mysticism, and by shunning metaphysics, Pirsig has had to defer
to mysticism as an alternative foundation.  But he doesn't explain mysticism
very well, either.  Consequently, I think Baggini had some justification for
concluding that the MoQ doesn't quite add up to the sum of its parts.

> 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.

In the space/time framework of our physical reality, the intellectual
precept is that everything starts at Point A and finishes at Point Z.  A
corollary to this precept is that whatever starts must have a cause.
Because empirical knowledge is based on such intellection, it is difficult
for the Western mind to comprehend that ultimate reality is not sequential.
In other words, Creation is not a sequence of causal events in time, despite
the fact that we see it that way.

>From the absolute perspective, Point A and Point Z are identical, timeless,
and complete.  Thus, the notion of a Creator having to be "created" in order
to exist becomes meaningless.  If we define existence as everything that is
experienced in time and space, it leaves out what is not experienced in time
and space.  The Creator (Essence) is uncreated and non-localized in (limited
by) space/time; Essence transcends finitude.  It is not an "existent".
Hence the term "transcendent".

The division of this Absolute Whole begins with cognizant awareness, when
the individual distinguishes itself from otherness and seeks to acquire the
being of otherness for itself.  This further divides otherness into
"particular others" and their separate values.  I hear you asking, "How and
why does this happen?"  For now, I'll give you a reason without fully
explaining the "how".

In order for something to be it must be made aware.  Experience provides
this awareness.  In becoming aware of being, we extract its value which just
so happens to be our essence.  This extraction (or realization) of value has
a metaphysical reciprocity: it replaces the value lost to the self at
creation.  From the human perspective, Essence is "negational".  (You'll
just have to accept that.)  As a metaphysical principle, the individual's
value-essence (or complement) is restored through experience, ultimately
reversing its negation by the Creator.

To put it simply, the value choices we make in life become what we are in
Essence.  Which is why I say that Essentialism is a valuistic philosophy.

Undoubtedly, this all sounds strange to you.  But I assure you that there is
a logic to it which makes sense, despite the fact that there are many things
about it I can't (yet) explain.  Anyway, if your interest is piqued, I'll be
happy to answer your questions.  Otherwise, you'll probably be happier
enjoying the Quality life at Hilton Head.

Essentially yours,
Ham