[MD] Dawkins a Materialist (is watching?]

[Ham Priday]

Greetings, Ron --


[Ham, to Arlo]:
> Do you accept my view that Value (Quality) is subjective?

[Ron]:
> This concept has been eating me, I hope you can shed
> some light, quality, subjective I would say yes
> As I understand the Tao te ching or reality and its quality,
> works the same way.
> There is reality-Tao-universal then the-quality-subjective
> reality once the mind perceives it through our senses
> then the subject/object divide-intellect.

I suppose having a concept "eating" you means you're having trouble
accepting it.  You'll see from Arlo's last message that he has no such
trouble: he adheres doggedly to the MoQ doctrine that Quality, as a
universal principle, "comes before objects and subjects."

I'm not conversant with Taoism, but when you say "...once the mind perceives
[reality] through our senses, THEN the subject/object divide," it looks to
me as if the "Tao-universal" is there first.  You also refer to the Tao te
ching "and its quality", but I don't know if its quality equates with its
identity.  Is the Tao-universal the primary reality, or is it Quality?  As
you know, Pirsig's position is that Quality is the primary reality.

Since I'm a free-thinking contrarian [Platt's term], I don't presume to
speak for the MoQ.  But, as I just said to Arlo, by all common definitions,
Quality is a relative measure of value or worth.  Unless Mr. Prisig has
redefined it for his purposes -- he refuses to define it for us -- this
necessitates both a subject (who measures the value or judges the worth) and
a referent object to which this subjective appraisal applies.  In other
words, the perception of Value (Quality) requires the S/O split.  My
argument all along has been that since everything in existence is relative
and divided, including man himself, existence is not the primary reality
(your Tao-te-ching?).

I assume primary reality to be uncreated, absolute, and indivisible.
Therefore, it cannot be a contingency that is dependent on a perception or
appraisal of something else.  Arlo insists that my Essence is a metaphor,
and perhaps it is.  But it's no more metaphoric than Pirsig's Quality.
Moreover, Essence logically qualifies as the primary reality, which Quality
does not.

I think Bo Slutvik is smack on when he talks about "the value of the S/O
divide," but I think he's wrong in wanting to redefine this as "the
intellectual level."  I don't believe in a collective Intellect.  I view
man's sense of Value as pre-intellectual, and I attribute "mind", "conscious
awareness", and "intellect" as proprietary and exclusive to the individual
subject.

Have I shed any light on this issue, Ron?  Or are you now thoroughly
confused?   Keep this in mind: However you resolve the enigma, it will be
your own value judgment.

Essentially yours,
Ham