[MD] The Quest for Quality

[MarshaV]

At 02:28 AM 9/15/2008, you wrote:

>Greetings Chris, Margaret (and the rest of you) --
>
>>The way I see it, evolution is indeed moving toward Good, or 
>>Quality.  But we are not equipped to understand the full
>>meaning of Quality, or perhaps not even a fraction. But we are
>>trying.  I think that's what it's all about, the movement of the
>>patterns. When a Quality event, or experience occurs, that is
>>in essence seeing a bit more of The Good, Quality.  We move
>>towards it, are embedded in it, a part of it and created of it,
>>it is always there.
>
>The way I see it, evolution is the temporal mode of man's 
>experience. Everything in existence is impermanent and changing, 
>including man himself. Change comes about as a result of difference, 
>specifically the difference (dichotomy) between subjective awareness 
>and the objective world we construct from our displaced value.  This 
>value is neither "good" nor "bad", except as we experience it.  And, 
>as value-sensible agents of existence, the Quest for Quality is 
>ours.  It is we who define moral values.
>
>As you say, we are not equipped to "understand" the full meaning of 
>value. But we are superbly equipped to realize it, so that the 
>"meaning" is self-evident in its perception.  All value is relative, 
>a maxim that Pirsig articulated as "some things are better than others".
>However, Pirsig erred in suggesting that Quality (value) is the 
>essence of reality and is "always there".  Value cannot exist 
>without a sensible observer, which is WHY we are here.  There is 
>your "meaning", Chris, and the reason it is not fully understood is 
>that the   MoQ's author failed to give his Quality a metaphysical foundation.
>
>Margaret isn't the only one for whom the concept of a universe 
>moving to betterness is problematic.
>
>[Margaret]:
>>I have a problem with the idea of 'evolution' evolving toward
>>something 'better' or with greater quality even.
>
>Even if everything is destined for betterness, where does that leave 
>the individual whose lifespan on this planet is less than four 
>generations? What possible purpose does Quality or value serve if 
>its ultimate state of goodness is never realized?  Does the notion 
>of "pure Quality" make any sense in the absence of a value-sensible agent?
>
>Nothing comes from nothing.  No existent - not Quality or even 
>Evolution - can bring itself into being.  The created world, and 
>everything in it, is derived from an uncreated source.  The idea of 
>a primary source that transcends existence is apostasy to 
>Pirsig.  Having  rejected this idea, he cannot account for the cause 
>of experiential reality, the appearance of a differentiated 
>universe, or, indeed, why some things are better.  There is no 
>meaning or teleology to the Quality hierarchy of levels and 
>patterns. The MoQ is a euphemistic paradigm for objective reality in 
>the same way that "being-in-the-world" is a paradigm for the 
>philosophy of existentialism.  It may be quality prose that makes us 
>feel good, but it is not a metaphysical cosmology.
>
>Sorry about this delayed response to Christoffer's post of 9/12 , 
>but I've been away for a week.
>
>Regards to all,
>Ham
>


Ham,

In an existence where everything is interrelated and ever-changing 
which direction would a first cause come from?  It looks to me like 
it would come from these collections of patterns called self, egos.

Marsha


.
.

Shoot for the moon.  Even if you miss, you'll land among the stars.........
.
.