[MD] Intuitive Reasoning?

[Rebecca Temmer]

Hi Ham,

You're wondering:
How do you define "perfect"?

Rebecca:
It's the undifferentiated right now.  Dynamic Quality.  Sitting here in my
living room with Farley the dog and my best friend Laura after a couple of
gin martinis listening to Neil Young with the satisfaction that the
dishes are finally done.  When the whole of the universe doesn't matter
because right here, right now, is the best place you can ever want to be.
The realization that "everything you do and want, you already are and have."

Ham:
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.

Rebecca:
Thank you for pointing this out.  I was trying to figure out how to explain
this and your comment has put it in focus for me.  What we seem to do as
humans is divide things into parts and patterns and concepts.  What Pirsig
is saying is like the coin having two faces - since we seem inclined to
divide things into parts, here is a nice way of doing it.  There is no final
resolution.  Only a balance.

Ham:
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:
If man can't comprehend perfection, then how do we have the idea that it
exists?  If perfection is merely a postulation of our own intellectual
creation then imprefection must surely be the same, no?  Which brings us
back to the fact that the distinction between im/perfection is all in our
heads...  It's not a deficiency, it's just the way we are.

Ham:
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.

Rebecca:
Pirsig does NOT attribute value, intellect, consciousness, experience,
ducks, redwoods, people or ANYTHING else to DQ.  IT is undivided experience,
the people here on _Discuss have attributed those things to DQ but I doubt
if you'll find it in Lila or elsewhere.  DQ is pre-intellectual, SQ is not.
That means things without intellect can still experience DQ - the whole of
reality, undifferentiated etc etc.  I suppose it would follow that
everything experiences DQ in the same undifferentiated manner,
but everything experiences SQ in a different manner from every other thing.

Ham:
If everything were perfect, there would be no need for discriminating
between "better" and "worse", "goodness" and "evil".

Rebecca:
But one man's good is another man's evil.  It's all in balance even if you
don't recognize it that way.

Ham:
 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.

Rebecca:
I'm not going to be so presumptuous as to speculate on how other beings on
this planet function. Wolves create their own social structures, so do
dolphins and whales and a whole host of other things.  This anthropocentric
arrogance is one of the ways we're thrown totally out of balance with the
undifferentiated whole.

Ham:
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.

Rebecca:
He hasn't avoided metaphysics, he's attempted to marry rationality and
mysticism ... and done a rather convincint job in many persons'
perspective. That the basis of his metaphysics is not solely classical
Western thought or scientific rationality speaks well to it.  These are the
causes of our current state - the good and the bad.

Ham:
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.

Rebecca:
Maybe at some point I will read your thesis Ham, but I'm convinced that the
MOQ is a solid idea to stand on.  Right now all I have the energy for is a
cigarette and my bed.

Back and forth,
Rebecca