[MD] [Moq_Discuss] Essentialism: MATTER AND FORM

[Ham Priday]

[Ron]:
> You are correct, Pirsig does put physical science in the same class
> as religion in regard to this.  Noether's theorem is a mathmatical
> anomaly which hints at the possible nature of energy, I can
> only base my theories on observances which is all any of us can do.
> I do not hold to this theory absolutely but it is interesting and
> supports the theory of energy(-ing) infinite.

I don't think any of us, Pirsig included, are qualified to endorse or 
criticize Noether's theorem.  Her theory relates to the symmetry of physical 
variables and quantum predictions, but has no more to do with subject/object 
duality than Heisenburg's uncertainty principle.  Pirsig's assertion that it 
"dissolves dualism" is unfounded.  Anyone who defines reality as "energy" is 
deferring to objectivist ideology.  That's not a metaphysical concept but 
the current (unconfirmed) view of physicists who are dealing with the 
material world.

[Ron]:
> See, this is what I didn't like about Moq either, is the interpretation
> of reality being fundementally a goodness called energy, that the
> universe is a moral order of betterness because betterness is
> relative isn't it? Better for who? Better for what? Ham, all I have to
> offer is this quote to try to explain Pirsig's theory  Perhaps your
> assesment of him being merely an evolutionist is correct,  perhaps
> he paints goodness as natural phenomena.
>
> "Good is conformity to an established pattern of fixed values and value
> objects". Lila 119

I don't see that this statement adds anything to our understanding.  All it 
says is that we seek values that are good.  So, what else is new?

I don't know where your next two quotes come from.  They are credited to 
Dewey (in 1920) but Pirsig wasn't born until 1928.  Essentially they assert 
that dynamic quality is an end toward which nature is heading but never 
achieves, and that both Dewey and Pirsig agree that evolution is moral.

What do you want me to say, Ron?  I know of no evidence to support the claim 
that evolution is "good" or "moral".  Some biological processes become more 
complex, some are reduced and die out.  Is that goodness?  Is the end result 
moral?  Who knows?  Protagoras wrote; "Man is the measure of all things." 
Shakespeare asked: "What is good, right or wrong but thinking makes it so?" 
Both were saying that the value or goodness of a thing is not a universal 
principle but a human appraisal.  It's nice to believe that atoms value each 
other and that the universe  aspires toward goodness but, like the Tooth 
Fairy, it's only the euphemism of a novelist.

What is good or bad is a subjective judgment relating to me.  If it brings 
me pleasure, health, or wealth it's good, and it's something I value. 
Likewise, morality is the social consensus of what is good for the members 
of the society.  I cannot relate to evolution in the natural world; it has 
no particular value for me.  As far as I'm concerned, we live in an amoral 
universe which would have no value if there were no awareness of it.  Man 
serves to bring value into existence -- to make value aware.  He provides an 
external perspective of essential value which perfects Essence.

What is Mr. Pirsig's explanation for the meaning of life?  Does calling 
evolution "moral" or substituting "value" for cause give me any reason for 
living my life differently or improving my future prospects?

> For Pirsig the supreme good is actually dynamic quality, but,
> in terms of static patterns of quality - of things that exist in the 
> world,
> he would agree entirely with Peirce; in terms of static patterns
> evolution is morality. However they disagree upon the nature of that
> process - Pirsig agrees with Dewey that there is no fixed end but
> only continuous change (or - growth)."

I would prefer that the author tell us himself, rather than be evaluated in 
terms of his agreement or disagreement with other philosophers.  Since he 
chose not to, it would appear that he had nothing new to offer on these 
issues.

[Ron]:
> Ham, I hope my queries are not irritating you, I am not
> intending it to.  I value the discussion and seek stimulating
> discourse. I'm not going to steadfastly defend MOQ and
> bash Essentialism; it would be rude, irrational and of poor
> form but I am interested in why others think the way they do.
> With that in mind and sans-sarcasim may I ask you what
> brought you to MOQ and this forum.  If its theories are that
> uncorrelative with your own? one would think why
> bother with MOQ at all?

Indeed, I continue to ask myself the same question.  I was initially drawn 
to the MoQ in 2002 while researching "Value" for my website thesis.  I saw 
that Pirsig had developed an esthetic philosophy based on quality and hoped 
that it held the answers to some of my questions.  I wrote to him twice with 
queries; he replied to my first letter rather tersely, commenting on the 
similarity of our philosophies, but stating that he was now retired and 
interested more in sailboating than philosophy.  (There was no response to 
the second letter.)

By the way, Ron, while I believe the MoQ is weakly supported by the author's 
metaphysics, I have no intention of competing with Pirsig, who has done 
quite well for a philosopher whose  academic training was in English.  (I'm 
told he is now "required reading" in college philosophy classes.)  I enjoyed 
Pirsig's two novels and SODV paper, although I didn't learn much philosophy 
from them.  Meanwhile I've gleaned much about contemporary thinking from the 
participants here, but recently have limited my participation to matters 
involving metaphysics.  I have a book coming out later this year and, 
depending on the interest generated, may eventually bow out of this forum.

That's my story.  What's yours?

--Ham