[MD] Essentialism and the MOQ

[Ham Priday]

Laramie, Marsha, SA --

Laramie said (to SA):
> I wasn't the one proposing an amoral universe.
> IMO the universe is pro-life.

The universe produces cognizant creatures like you, so in that sense it may
be regarded as "pro-life".  But that isn't morality; it's evolution with a
purpose -- to make being aware.  What are living beings like you aware of?
The value of the Creator.  What are you cognizant of?   The being you call
existence.   The finite things you experience in life represent the value
you sense differentially and intellectually convert to beingness.  The
universe that you construct as the appearance of being is an amoral system.
As the "free agent" of this system, YOU determine its values.

Marsha said:
> Now I'm really spooked.  In these last dozen posts of this
> Subject, I am basically agreeing with Ham.  And I don't
> see a contradiction between what he is stating and the
> 11/16 quote.

And I am very gratified by your understanding, Marsha.  Here is part of the
quotation I think you are referring to:

"But that which causes us to invent the analogues is Quality.
Quality is the continuing stimulus which our environment puts upon us
to create the world in which we live. All of it. Every last bit of it.

``Now, to take that which has caused us to create the world, and
include it within the world we have created, is clearly impossible.
That is why Quality cannot be defined. If we do define it we are
defining something less than Quality itself.''    (ZMM, Chapter 21)

That is a rare Eckhartian statement by the author of the MoQ.  If you
substitute the word Value for "Quality", Pirsig's statement may be seen to
reflect my viewpoint.  I do try to define Value, of course.  I call it
"Man's affinity for Essence", and my definition presupposes that the
sensible core of the self is a "negate"; that is, it is deprived of Essence
when it comes into the world.  The whole life-experience is the process of
the self attempting to reclaim its lost Essence in its perceived values of
beingness.

SA asks:
> Are we to make moral decisions based on it doesn't matter,
> due to the universe is amoral?  People are in the universe.
> How we may live, in a chemical ridden creek or no poison
> in the creek.  Creek, people, and much else is of this universe,
> not really seein' what amoral means.

My philosophy of Essence has a morality too: It holds that man is free to
choose his values, and thereby shape the world by his decisions.  If the
universe were perfectly "moral", there would be no free choice: we would all
be bound (progammed) to act in accordance with perfection.  Obviously, this
isn't the case.  We can't survive as independent creatures without
evaluating the choices that ensure our survival.  But we are all FREE to
"make mistakes", to live immorally, to reject (or fail to recognize)
goodness, and choose "poor quality" or evil values.  Ultimately, it is the
values we choose in life that determine our essential reality.

For a very convincing essay on the relativity of values, I encourage you all
to read "Confessions of a Moral Relativist" which is actually a sermon by
Steve Edington, a Unitarian minister.  You can access it at
www.essentialism,net/confessions.htm .  It may change your thinking about
Pirsig's "moral universe."

Thanks for all your responses to this topic.

-- Ham