[MD] Philosophy and Philosophology

[Ham Priday]

Greetings, Andre --


> Pirsig suggests that 'Man' as a collection of PoV's is 'a
> participant in the creation of things' (ZMM p 368).
>
> You are assigning to 'man himself' an independent reality.
> This is typical S/O thinking. You thereby suggest that 'Man'
> has absolutely no relationship with/connection with the
> inorganic and organic PoV's from which it is derived.
> This is nonsense.

Andre, I have participated in this forum for six years, and can assure you 
I've read all the items on your qualifications list, including McWatts' 
Ph.D. thesis on the MoQ.  None of this has deterred me from the valuistic 
ontology that has been my pursuit for at least half a century, however.

Your charge that I've suggested "Man has absolutely no 
relationship/connection with the
inorganic and organic" is simply not true.  What I've said is that the human 
being is a dichotomy of proprietary sensibility and otherness (being).  The 
'beingness' contingent of this dichotomy is the perceived physical body 
(constituted of both organic and inorganic matter, incidentally) and the 
material universe on which human being is dependent.  The subjective 
(awareness) contingency IS independent and autonomous, which affords man a 
finite, unbiased "external" perspective of Essential Value and the ability 
to exercise free choice in the life-experience.

> Read Chapter 8 of Lila, Ham. It starts with: 'The idea that the world is
> composed of nothing but moral value sounds impossible at first'.

Nothing in metaphysics is "impossible", but Pirsig's error is actually 
epistemological rather than philosophical.  "Moral value" is a human 
convention, plain and simple.  The universe does not dictate values or 
morality, nor can value be realized by insentient entities.  It is man who 
brings Value into existence as finite, relational objects and events 
exhibiting a range of qualitative, quantitative, and "moral" properties.

> Must give you two observations though: imho the world does appear
> to evolve (back) toward Quality (i.e Harmony, Good).
>
> The 'human invention bit: well, Pirsig posited it, backed up
> by rediscovering its social roots with the Sophists, cross-referencing
> it with the Tao, the Buddha etc as the oldest idea in the world, and
> applying it within our scientific, S/O dominated  intellect and thereby
> arguing a way of understanding the world which is far more inclusive
> and makes a lot more sense (by denying the primacy of subjects and
> objects and positing Quality as the primary 'source'.

The "world of appearances", to use Hegel's phrase, is experiential 
Existence.  It is man's experience of "otherness" as a dynamic 
cause-and-effect system that is ordered in space,  evolutionary in time, and 
relative to the observer.  I maintain that physical existence is not 
ultimate Reality but, rather, the valuistic construction of the subjective 
mind.

> But, to stretch my point a bit farther, the quantum particle has said
> that it prefers what it does based on a response to quality because
> that particle is part of me ...and you! ( are you happy to be here??
> Arggh lets not get into that one...I hope you follow my reasoning).

This isn't "reasoning", it's euphemizing -- the same kind of analogous prose 
that pervades Pirsig's novels, and which he himself mocks as 
'philosophology'.   Why do you suppose the author refuses to define his 
terms and derides metaphysics?

> I do not know what you mean by 'functional attributes of the material
> universe' not 'cosmic role for human beings'. Again you separate
> out objective and subjective while the MoQ clearly identifies material/
> substance (objective) with inorganic PoV's and human beings (subjective)
> with organic PoV's ,the only difference being their different evolutionary
> levels. And this is what leads Pirsig to , then, suggest that 'Mind is
> contained in static inorganic patterns. Matter is containd in static
> intellectual patterns...and capable of each containing to other without
> contradiction'. (Lila, p 159)

Andre, to dismiss the S/O division of existence is sheer folly.  We all live 
as subjects relative to an objective world.  It is the natural order of 
existence.  Without a subject the world would not exist. Without objects 
human beings would be incapable of discerning Value.  Only through this 
dichotomous relationship can man assume the role of "value agent" in the 
universe.  Can you not appreciate the meaning of this concept?

> Ham:
> Looking for more sensible insight,
>
> Andre:
> Only if you are willing to see and hear Ham.

Believe me, I am willing, Andre.
But what I see and hear on the MD has been anything but sensible.

Essentially yours,
Ham