[MD] Value and the Individual

[Arlo Bensinger]

[Ham]
I'm introducing a new topic, because I think it's the crux of our 
problem with Pirsig's Quality thesis.

[Magnus]
Actually, the crux for you in this forum is a few selected quotes 
from your recent posts.

[Arlo]
Notice, too, here the sly, deceptive use of the royal "we". "Our" 
problem? What deceitful rhetoric! If you review the majority of Ham's 
contributions, you'll see a pattern emerge where he "pretends" to 
have some difficulty resolving Pirsig's ideas, and will then act like 
he and you can "find a solution together", but every step of the way 
its nothing but a presentation on how "Essentialism" is superior to 
"Pirsig's Quality thesis". He was doing this a while back over his 
"Glorious Man", and when I intervened he said I was "hindering 
acceptance of the MOQ". I still laugh out loud at this. Ham, your 
buddy, who will help you resolve your mutual confusion about the MOQ 
and then, lo and behold, we are in Essentialism! What coincidence! 
"Our problem"... give me a break.

[Magnus]
Every single quality event involves two objects. From each object's 
point of view, *it* is the subject valuing the other.

[Arlp]
Spot on. From ZMM, "Quality [can not] be independently related with 
either the subject or the object but could be found only in the 
relationship of the two with each other. It is the point at which 
subject and object meet. ... It is the event at which the subject 
becomes aware of the object. And because without objects there can be 
no subject...because the objects create the subject's awareness of 
himself...Quality is the event at which awareness of both subjects 
and objects is made possible. ... This means Quality is not just the 
result of a collision between subject and object. The very existence 
of subject and object themselves is deduced from the Quality event. 
The Quality event is the cause of the subjects and objects, which are 
then mistakenly presumed to be the cause of the Quality! " (Pirsig).

[Ham]
if the evolution of nature is an automatic process that goes on 
without human involvementwhat cosmic purpose is served by man's creation?

[Magnus]
Seriously, are you trying to convert us to some religious 
interpretation of reality?

[Arlo]
Understand, Magnus, that for Ham the greatest threat to our 
civilization is "nihilism", and that is evident clear in his 
question. We HAVE TO have some "cosmic purpose", and the entire 
edifice of Essentialism has been built out of fear of facing the 
void. A couple years back, Ian summarized Ham's "thinly veiled 
theism" perfectly.

""Consciousness" is a "special creation" of Essence that is "granted" 
to "priviliged subjects" so that they can "realize and affirm" the 
Infinite Source.... God created humans so they would worship him, 
eh?" (MOQ Archives, Dec 8, 2005).

[Ham]
But it's also true that if there is no individual there is no existence.

[Magnus]
That's actually correct if you see every static pattern as an 
individual. But I'm pretty sure you, by individual, mean "man", right?

[Arlo]
Again, spot on, Magnus.