[MD] French ingredient in the soup of sentiments

[Ham Priday]

 Hi Platt --

> I don't think Pirsig has postulated an "extracorporeal intellect."
> He has postulated, like you, an extracorporeal creative power
> (his "DQ," your "Essence.") that cannot be defined as intellect
> or anything else. Either that or I don't understand DQ or
> Essence or Intellect. That said, I think we agree that intellect
> and the individual cannot be pulled apart, split or otherwise
> separated. "Mind" however is a different kettle of fish. I
> don't think of "mind" and "intellect" as synonyms. To me,
> "Mind" is the same as your "Essence" (as I understand it).

As a point of technicality, my Essence is not "extracorporeal" since it
encompasses all as Not-other to itself.  I'm not sure whether this is
alleged to be the case with DQ; but if it is not, then Quality cannot be the
primary source.  If DQ is Mind, as you suggest, rather than Intellect,
you are in Hoffman's "Consciousness" corner, not Pirsig's.  Again, however,
you would have to define "mind" as the Source or Creator of all that is -- 
i.e., the power to actualize or differentiate physical reality.  Is that
your metaphysical position?

> Well, we are getting bogged down here in vocabulary.
> Your "sensibility" is "Mind" to me, and I consider
> awareness to be part of "Mind."

Mind is a part of awareness.  Yes, metaphysics is "bogged down in
vocabulary"; it has to be because words are all we have to express
inexperiencable concepts.  Personally, I think the common notion of Mind is
restricted to "thought processes" or "mental activity" which is too limiting
for the primary source.  Mind has no particular value aspect because it does
not imply "sensibility".  That is, we perceive aesthetic value "sensually"
rather than mentally or intellectually.  (The way you experience Beauty, for
example.)   I prefer Essence because it connotes source, nature, immanence,
fundamental and indispensable.  Do you think Dynamic Quality would suggest a
primary source to anyone unfamiliar with the MoQ?  Does it mean primary sour
ce to you?

You said:
> The brain accesses mind that is infused in all things
> and exists everywhere at once.

I said:
> So we're back to the notion of a collective mind,
> which might as well be Pirsig's Intellect, and once again
> I have to ask why you're bothering to push for intellect
> as individual.

You answered:
> To me "collective mind" means everybody agreeing
> on certain truths or courses of action. The "Mind" I
> talk about transcends everybody.

A transcendent "Mind" would have to encompass differentiated "beingness" -- 
subjective awareness and its objects -- as a single, absolute identity.  I
can't envision a Mind as having no object, but maybe you can stretch your
definition to make this conceivable.  In any case, I'll stick with Essence.

Platt:

> What attracts me to Pirsig is his connecting of Essence to
> Morality. I know you disagree, relegating morality to the
> narrow, restrictive social world of man. But I see no reason
> why Essence isn't a moral force. In fact, if Essence is all
> inclusive and all creative as you say, not to include morality
> would be a contradiction.

Morality, like everything else, is ultimately "connected" with Essence by
virtue of the fact that Essence is the primary source of everything.  But to
believe that the universe is moral is a misconception.  Differentiated
existence is no more moral than it is "bad" or "good".  It is the individual
who makes this determination by realizing its value.  If the universe were
"all good" there would be no sense of relative values, hence no reason for
differentiated awareness.

So, you see, I do recognize Value -- not as "morality" but as the conscious
individual's attraction to and desire for what he senses as "good",
"significant", or "beautiful" in a world whose attributes run the gamut from
the sublime to the abominable.

Incidentally, I must commend you for your persistence in defending America's
free enterprise system against the continuing onslaught of the leftists in
this community.  It's a hopeless challenge, but you accept the task with
such grace and eloquence that no one can doubt your sincerity or dismiss the
facts you bring to this issue.  (I wish I had you as an editor for my Values
Page!)

Best regards,
Ham