[MD] Intuitive Reasoning?

[Rebecca Temmer]

 Hey,

Ham said:

If the world is made of Quality, what accounts for Nature's imperfections
and man's deficiencies?  Why isn't everything inherently perfect?  Does the
MoQ have an explanation for this state of affairs?

Rebecca replies:
Nature is not imperfect.  It was perfect half an hour ago, it is perfect now
and it will be perfect hence forth.  Man's deficiencies are all in his
head.  Everything is inherently perfect.  The only imperfect things are the
devisions we make because you can never explain the whole of reality by
dividing it into parts.

Pirsig's explanation doesn't sidestep this problem  but fundamentally
acknowledges it by cutting reality into un/divided experience.  My reading
is: here is the whole of reality on one hand, and here is a useful way (the
four static levels) of dividing it up, on the other. BUT let's not forget
the primary thing is that we are cutting up a whole. Which, conceptually I
guess, would make DQ and SQ two different ways of looking at the same thing
- reality as a whole.  It is both dynamic and static at the same time,
always.

Ham:
My explanation is that man's perennial struggle with existence has an
ultimate purpose --namely, to make being aware. Human life is a "working
out" of values by an autonomous agent in pursuit of its own excellence.

Rebecca:
Like everyone else in the room, you're entitled to your own way of chopping
up the universe.  How would you define excellence?  Is it the same or
similar to Quality?

Ham:
We are each granted the freedom to choose our own values.
In becoming aware of objective otherness, each of us brings conditional
value into being until the otherness that we are aware of is no longer an
object but the unconditional value of our primary source.  In other words,
what we are in Essence is what we value in life.  We are all here to reclaim
that value.

Rebecca:
I'm not certain that I know what you mean here.  I'm probably just tired and
being thick.  I think, though, that the value we need to reclaim is the
admission that while we differentiate between things, these lines are
arbitrary - values are where we draw these lines.  What Pirsig seems to be
suggesting is that while the lines are necessary, we also need to realize
that they are only scratches in the sand and will be washed away by the
tides.

Maybe we can get somewhere with this...
Rebecca