[MD] Intuitive Reasoning?

[Ham Priday]

Greetings Rebecca --

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 divisions we make because
> you can never explain the whole of reality by dividing it into parts.

How do you define "perfect"?    If all it means is "whole", then I accept
your argument.  I agree that we can "never explain the whole of reality by
dividing it into parts."  But Pirsig is trying to divide it into parts with
his levels and patterns concept.  According to your reasoning, this does not
move us toward a resolution of the problem.

Actually, Perfection is something that man can't comprehend -- even if he
observed it.  An imperfect intellligence is incapable of understanding or
appreciating perfection.  So that raises the question: If, as you say,
Nature is perfect, why is man deficient?  Why does he have these
"deficiencies in his head" if he is a part of a perfect Nature?

Rebecca:
> 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.

I think that's a good description of Pirsig's overall thesis.  Like other
philosophers, he explains differentiated existence and absolute Oneness as
the two sides of a coin.  What troubles me is the way he divides the primary
Source [Quality], and his attribution of Value, Intellect, Consciousness and
Experience to the undivided source [DQ], when these are clearly proprietary
functions of the individual.  This reduces man to the biological level of a
duck, while at the same time imparting conscious experience to atoms, rocks,
and trees.  To my way of thinking, this is demeaning to the rational
creature with the unique capacity to choose his values.

Ham said:
> My explanation is that man's perennial struggle with existence
> has an ultimate purpose -- 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?

First of all, I am a moral relativist.  I do not believe in "absolute
goodness", and I  understand morality as an invention of man to keep society
peaceful and orderly.   What is good or bad in human conduct is relative to
the conditions by which such behavior is judged.  I would define
"excellence" as the quality of being eminently good, e.g., top-grade,
superior, worthy of praise.  But any "quality of being" is a relational
concept, because being itself is relational.  It is the fact that our world
is differentiated which allows us to appreciate value in the first place.
If everything were perfect, there would be no need for discriminating
between "better" and "worse", "goodness" and "evil".  Human beings have the
capacity to discriminate; it's this capacity that allows us to improve our
environment, create our own social structure, develop our value sensibility,
cure disease, and speculate upon the mystery of our existence.  No other
creature has this ability.

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 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...

I agree that the "lines" are abitrary, but the fundamentals should not be.
Pirsig's philosophy is sadly lacking in the metaphysical fundamentals.  In
fact, he has avoided metaphysics on the ground that "Quality cannot be
defined".  He has reduced the individual to a byproduct of biological and
societal evolution.  He claims to have "overcome" the duality of 'mind and
matter' which we all confront on a daily basis, yet  he dismisses 'cause and
effect' as a logical principle of an evolutionary world.

If you really want to "get somewhere with this," I extend the same
invitation to you that I've made to others here: take some time to read my
thesis at www.essentialism.net, and come back to me with your questions.
You might want to start with the section on Value [No. 5] in which I've
"adapted" certain parts of Pirsig's theory to support my own.

Looking forward to further discussions with you, Rebecca.

Essentially yours,
Ham