[MD] Chance

[Ham Priday]

Greetings, Ron --


> The conflict in the meaningfulness between physical cosmology
> and metaphysical cosmology lies in it's usefulness to the individual.
> Some people need to be assured of their origin meaning and place
> while others are comfortable with not knowing this in any universal
> sense, rather placing this question within the free agent's will
> to form these concepts from their own experience.

Perhaps I'm naive, Ron, but for me cosmology is cosmology whether we 
understand it as "physical" or "metaphysical".  I realize that some people 
here
think of metaphysics as in a "world of its own" that has no relation to 
existence, and tend to dismiss it as religious myth.  Frankly, the lack of 
interest in this subject is surprising, considering that Pirsig's philosophy 
bears the title "Metaphysics of Quality".  It seems odd that subscribers to 
the MoQ should be left with questions about reality (its origin, meaning, 
and their role in the universe), or with the option to "form these concepts 
from their own experience."  Why haven't such questions been addressed by 
the author?

> I find this interesting coming from the two most avid champions
> Of individualism and free agency, that they would tout universals
> in its stead, in any form.  Universal understanding of origin,
> Place and meaning of the universe implies a collective appreciation
> For your metaphysical ideals. If essentialism succeeds in supplying
> Meaning and purpose for humanity how does the individual free agent
> Figure into it? Seems to me that the independent assessment of meaning
> and source is taken from the individual in Essentialism whereas physical
> Cosmology at least leaves the door open to free will of concepts.

I assume the appellation "champions of individualism" refers to Platt and 
myself.  I can't speak for Platt, but I think you've misconstrued 
Essentialism if you regard it as a "collective" or universal belief system. 
While I would be delighted if all mankind could become essentialists, as it 
would eliminate many socio-cultural problems, my philosophy is distinctly 
individualistic in its presentation and approach to meaning.  It's my belief 
that each individual must discover the meaning of his/her life, that the 
primary source is immanent, and that the value of a philosophy can be 
realized only by the individual.

> Science offers theories based on observed phenomena where you offer
> absolute source from intuitive reason. Science leaves the door open for
> competing theories, Essentialism's source is absolute and non-negotiable.

Again, you have confused the source with differentiated existence.  My 
Essence is absolute in the same way that Pirsig's DQ is absolute.  But, 
whereas the individual in the MoQ is described as a product of biological 
and social evolution and subject to the collective intellect, I view the 
human being as a free and autonomous agent of value.  It is the difference 
between primary Oneness and individuated awareness that creates value in the 
first place.  Individuals are psychically negated from Essence and can only 
sense its value relationally.  If they were essential (which is not possible 
because
of existential differentation) they would not be free to choose, and life 
would be a meaningless programmed ritual.  It is our separateness which give 
us the sensibility to realize value and use it to actualize our "being in 
the world".

The reason you don't hear about Freedom from the Pirsigians is that they 
believe man is a collective entity moving toward "betterness" through the 
process of an evolving universe.  Existence is their "primary source" and 
only reality.  Since they also believe the universe to be inherently 
"moral", it doesn't leave much choice to the individual.  The "Quality 
hierarchy" is a nice metaphor for "value experience" of various kinds, but 
without a metaphysical foundation the human being is little more than a 
biped organism with advanced cerebral functions running its prescribed 
course.

I am told that I have the MoQ all wrong, that Quality is "dynamic" and 
self-revealing, that everything in existence is a pattern (including me), 
and that the author in his brilliance has "overcome duality" with this 
thesis. Metaphorically this may be true.  However, after six years of 
participation in this forum, and having read both of the author's novels, 
I've become disillusioned by the lack of genuine metaphysical insight in 
this philosophy and the confusion surrounding its fundamental premises.

This is my personal assessment, of course, and I don't wish to disparage you 
or anyone else who has gained peace of mind or wisdom from following 
Pirsig's scenario.  As I said above, one's philosophy is a personal choice.

Thanks for expressing your views, Ron.  I hope this has helped to clarify 
some of the issues you did not understand about Essentialism.

Regards,
Ham