[MD] Distinguishing Levels

[david buchanan]

Steve, Ham, Case and all:

Ham said to Case:
But what really struck me was your conclusion: "Betterness" is a value 
judgment that you can make if it makes you feel "better".  How true!  Why is 
it that the Pirsigians can't see this?  Why do they insist on promoting the 
doctrine that "betterness" is programmed into some extra-corporeal dimension 
called Quality?  Perhaps a better question is: What would become of 
"betterness" if there was no subjective awareness?...

Steve replied:
MOQers postulate along with Pirsig that experience is Quality. It is an 
intellectual postulate that either bears fruit or not. Pirsig's analogy or 
polar and rectangular coordinates applies. The MOQer argument is not that 
the Quality postulate is a fact and that any metaphysics that does not 
include that same postulate is false. ...I would invite you to see where 
that postulates takes you rather than simply proclaiming it to be false. It 
could only be true or false in relation to other postulates that you made 
prior to the Quality one,  ...If you are unwilling to begin with "experience 
is Quality" as an intellectual postulate then it seems to be you have no 
business participating in this discussion.

dmb says:
Hmmm. I don't think Quality is anything like "an extra-corporeal dimension", 
whatever that is, and I don't think it's a postulate either. You know, 
Quality hangs in the butcher shop window. I can see how people might get the 
impression that we're talking about metaphysical abstractions, because we 
are. But I think Quality itself is something we all know from experience. It 
refers to something you already knew before you ever read Pirsig or started 
talking about it with a bunch of MOQers.

Take a look at these excerpts from Leland Baggett's interview with Robert 
Pirsig. Pirsig says,...

“Two words came up to me that I learned in German class long ago; they are 
the words ‘kenntnis’ and ‘wissenschaft.’ Both words mean ‘to know.’ We use 
the word in English, ‘to know,’ the same way. The two meanings of ‘kenntnis’ 
and ‘wissenschaft’ are ‘to know as one would know one’s own mother’s face,’ 
that’s ‘kenntnis.’ ‘Wissenschaft’ would be ‘to know as one knows 
Mesopotamian history.’ To us they are just both forms of ‘knowing’ but in 
German I am told that they are very different and that they are regarded as 
two entirely different entities. As different as blue and green or as 
different as ice and snow which the Hindi language confuses as one word.”

“It then occurred to me that quality is not easily understood by 
wissenschaft, the knowledge by which you understand ancient history, but you 
can understand it so quickly through kenntnis, by acquaintance, because you 
don’t even have to think about it. So this very interesting split is one 
which divides on the word ‘Quality.’ Quality you can know by kenntnis. You 
say it’s good – ‘yeah it’s great, I like it’ – you don’t have to think about 
it, you don’t have to analyse it, you don’t have to sit down. But if you say 
‘why do you like it? Give me the specific reasons, lay out your framework 
for understanding it,’ you’ll find that it is a very, very difficult task.”

dmb continues:
It seems to me that the postulations and such come afterward. The hot stove 
example points to this same idea, first you know the situation has a 
negative quality. The reasons and explanations come later. You "knew" is was 
better to get off the stove before you had any concept of stove or better or 
anything else. See, its not magic or anything. Nothing could be simpler. The 
idea that Quality is the first thing we know, that there is a 
pre-intellectual experience leads to and fits nicely with intellectual 
doctrines like radical empiricism, but all those philosophical assertions 
are about an experience we "know" by kenntnis, not by postulation. The trick 
is to come up with a metaphysical system that accounts for this and Pirsig's 
enemy is SOM largely because it does not.

And there is another excerpt from Anthony's website... (robertpirsig.org)

“In a sense, the MOQ is an acceptance of this fact, that Quality is here, 
and that if we can’t explain it, you’re not going to get rid of the quality. 
We have to adjust our system of explanation in such a way that we can 
incorporate Quality into a rational system of thought.”

“Quality is not going to go away and if our system of thought cannot 
comprehend what quality is and lay it out in a rational, orderly form then 
we must modify our whole system of thought to accommodate this existence of 
quality or value in our lives. The MOQ is that attempt to completely up-end 
and change the entire theory of the universe from a subject-object theory of 
the universe, which has existed in the past, to a value-centered universe in 
which suddenly you have a system of thought in which ‘Quality” is a real, 
usable, rational term and in which no destruction is made to subjects and 
objects as they are conceived in our present metaphysics.”

dmb says:
I'd also like to draw Ham's attention to what Pirsig is saying about the 
MOQ. He said, "the MOQ is that attempt to completely UP-END the entire 
theory of the unverse FROM a subject-object theory." You see Ham, there is a 
good reason that your efforts to impress the Pirsigians with the importance 
of "subjective awareness" always seem to fall on deaf ears. Its because 
you're advocating the problem. You're also giving yourself away as one who 
has not met this forum's only requirement; that you read at least one of 
Pirsig's books.

Personally, I'd like to see you read the books and enjoy the forum, but I 
also gotta say that your weird blend of condescension and total cluelessness 
really isn't working.

_________________________________________________________________
Is your PC infected? Get a FREE online computer virus scan from McAfee® 
Security. http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963