[MD] Chance

[Platt Holden]

Hi Ham, (Dan Glover mentioned)

Welcome to the discussion. 

To go directly to the main issue you raise as I see it:

[Ham]
> Pirsig's reality avoids the individual and is totally wrapped up in nature,
> evolution, and social systems.  He sees DQ as a fundamental principle of the
> objective world, and experience as its mediator, which is a novel idea that
> is beautifully developed.  Indeed, he has all the propositions needed to tie
> the ends together on his ontology, except the critical one -- the fact that 
> a  sensible agent is required to bring both Value and experience into 
> existence.  Having set out to overcome the S/O duality, he won't allow himself
> to accept existence as an anthropocentric reality.

Bypassing for a moment your erroneous statement that "He sees DQ as a 
fundamental principle of the objective world . . ." (DQ is a fundamental 
principle of Quality), permit me to challenge your implied assertion that a 
"sensible agent" must be an "anthropocentric reality" -- meaning I presume 
that only human beings can be sensible agents. 

Bypassing again for the moment that my cat, Utoe, exhibits many 
characteristics of a sensible agent, I refer you to a question I posed back 
in 1997 that Pirsig answered,  reported in the book "Lila's Child" compiled 
by Dan Glover: (Thanks again, Dan)

Platt: "As I understand it, the MOQ equates Quality with direct experience. 
In turn, experience creates static patterns of value. The problem is - how 
could inorganic static patterns be created unless inorganic entities like 
atoms were able to experience?"

Pirsig: "I think the answer is that inorganic objects experience events but 
do not react to them biologically, socially or intellectually.  They react 
to these experiences inorganically, according to the laws of physics." 
(Annotation 30)

So I think it's not that Pirsig " . . . won't allow himself to accept the 
existence as an anthropocentric reality," but that he won't allow existence 
to be exclusively anthropocentric. It seems this is a fundamental parting 
of the ways between you and Pirsig.

 In my opinion, the Achilles heel of your Essence philosophy is your belief 
that reality is "a concoction of my own proprietary awareness." (Seizing 
the Essence, p.34 -- your book that I highly recommend to all interested in 
philosophy.) I simply cannot buy the idea that the universe did not exist 
before I arrived on the scene, or that dinosaurs only existed as bones 
because no human ever observed them in the flesh, or that trucks only exist 
in the mind, an assertion that being run over by one easily defeats. 

Be that as it may, always a pleasure to converse with you and read your
views, most of which I agree with, especially those regarding the current 
sad state of affairs in the U.S., exemplified by a presidential wannabe who 
believes he has campaigned in 57 states. A Harvard graduate no less. 

Best regards,
Platt