[MD] Philosophy and Philosophology

[Ham Priday]

Andre and Bo --


I hope you have observed a fundamental difference between the MoQ, as you 
interpret it, and my valuistic philosophy.  Both of you dismiss or reject 
Protagoras's maxim "Man is the measure of all things," and I believe Pirsig 
does, too.  If this dialogue achieves nothing else, it will be my aim to 
confront you with the fact (yes, it is a fact) that man himself is the sole 
arbiter and judge of what is good, moral, or esthetically pleasing, and 
their negative counterparts.

In other words, in the absence of human sensibility, Value simply does not 
exist.  The universe does not evolve to Quality, atoms do not respond to 
Value, and Morality is distinctly a human invention.  Based on this truth, 
let me bounce back some assertions you have made or quoted.  (I've 
emphasized certain words and phrases to demonstrate my point.)

[Andre on 8/6]:
> Because goodness strives towards harmony. WE LIKE harmony
> in simplicity.  Badness is just messy and is used as a 'driving force'
> toward good. If all were perfect from the start we would not be here.

[Andre, quoting Pirsig]:
> Quality has the universe. 'Particles 'prefer' to do what they do.
> An individual particle is not absolutely committed to one
> predictable behaviour'...it 'is just a very consistent pattern of
> preferences'.  And just look around you and at the night sky
> to REALIZE what wonderful preferences have been combined.

[Bo on 8/7]:
> Quality gives DIRECTION to existence, hence DQ/SQ.

> It's the very essence of the MOQ that GOODNESS INCREASES
> with every level and that the upper REGARDS the lower as "no good"
> and the lower NOT RECOGNIZING any upper, but regarding it as
> polluting of own value.

> As I said, the DQ/SQ division is a postulate - an axiom - nothing
> can prove it except the BETTER (non-paradoxical) EXISTENCE
> IT CREATES.  Good and evil is a result of the level
> arrangement. The fact that "pain hurts" needs no consideration and
> philosophical deliberations.

In all of these statements the assumption is made that "creating", "liking", 
"preferring", "realizing" "struggling", "recognizing", and "bettering" are 
functional attributes of the material universe or its patterned 
constituents.  No mention is made of man and his subjective sensibility, as 
if to deny that we ourselves are accountable for the realization and 
appreciation of value.  Instead of suggesting a cosmic role for human 
beings, this notion in effect regresses philosophy to the animism of the 
ancient alchemists.

Andre does leave an opening, however, in his response to my criticism that 
the MoQ is basically "an evolutionary source starting with evil."

[Andre on 8/6]:
> I do not agree Ham.  It starts with potential.

Well, that at least shows some promise for a logical ontogeny.  But where 
does MoQ's author
mention this, or even hint at it?  Bo?  Anyone?

Looking for more sensible insight,
Ham