[MD] The End of Faith - Spirituality

[Ham Priday]

Hi Ron --


You wrote to Marsha:
> As I've said before, reason is just a word for intellectual quality.

This is the kind of definition that keeps Pirsig's quality unfathomable to 
less dogmatic followers like myself.  It's one thing to say that a properly 
reasoned conclusion is logical,
well-founded, and justifiable within a logical framework.  In the sense that 
it serves as a ground of explanation for a premise, it is good and "has 
quality".  But one's reasoning can also be flawed, in which case the 
conclusion is false, unsupported, and of  "low quality".

As I see it, reason is an intellectual process whereby empirical evidence is 
organized in a cogent way that leads to a rational conclusion.  A rational 
conclusion, by the way, does not express an "absolute truth"; it is only 
reasonable by virtue of the intellect's propensity to accept the logic of a 
proposition whose premises are consistent.  Logic is a product of the 
intellect, and the assumption that the universe must conform to the 
principles of human intellection is itself flawed.

To assert that "reason" and "intellectual quality" are synonymous muddies 
the waters and distorts the meaning of both terms.  By Pirsig's equation, 
Quality = Morality.  Now you're telling us that Quality = Intellect.  I've 
been saying for a long time that quality and goodness (normative morality) 
are relative to individual experience and his/her perception of the world, 
and that this kind of valuation is what we're all about.  The cognizant 
creature is an autonomous agent of value (call it "quality" if you must).

It is reasonable to have faith in the conclusions of science and logic for 
practical purposes in a relational world.  But in no sense is the individual 
a free agent of "intellect", nor does the physical universe operate 
according to intellectual principles (of either high or low quality).

Regards,
Ham