[MD] The Quality/MOQ dichotomy.

[Ham Priday]

Bo, Andrè  --


On Monday, February 02, 2009 2:57 PM, Bo writes (to Andrè):

Bodvar before :
> "Where was Quality before Pirsig"?
>
> My cryptic question harks back to ZAMM's "Newton's Gravity"
> argument which shows that great theories aren't mere descriptions
> of reality, but creates realities, yet afterwards they seen as mere
> descriptions of something too obvious to be questioned (from
> ZAMM)
>
    "I honestly don't know what a thing has to do to be
    nonexistent. It seems to me that law of gravity has passed
    every test of nonexistence there is. You cannot think of a
    single attribute of nonexistence that that law of gravity
    didn't have. Or a single scientific attribute of existence it
    did have. And yet it is still `common sense' to believe that it
    existed. [.....]   `Well, I predict that if you think about it long
    enough you will find yourself going round and round and
    round and round until you finally reach only one possible,
    rational, intelligent conclusion. The law of gravity AND
    GRAVITY ITSELF did not exist before Isaac Newton. No
    other conclusion makes sense. ``And what that means,'' I
    say before he can interrupt, ``and what that means is that
    that law of gravity exists nowhere except in people's
    heads."  (my caps)
>
> What Phaedrus meant is that gravitation as a force permeating
> the universe emerged with Newton. Things fell to the ground
> before but this was - and still is - observation data.  Nowadays
> the conviction that gravity governs the universe is so cemented
> that P's argument that the theory created gravity looks weird,
> but we aren't here to slosh old tea, are we?
>
> Thus by the same irrefutable logic Quality as a force permeating
> the universe emerged with Pirsig.

The notion that someone has to name a principle or formulate an equation in 
order for something to "exist" is nonsensical.  You are equating observed 
experience with intellectual knowledge.  Let's not get so carried away by an 
author or his metaphor that we credit that individual for "creating" a 
natural phenomenon that can be experienced even by creatures with no 
intellectual ability.

If "things fell to the ground" before Newton, then an attractive force was 
operative before the law of gravity was ever set to paper.  Early caveman 
observed that rubbing two dry sticks together vigorously could produce fire, 
probably attributing it to magic or the power of a deity.  Only later was 
the fire explained as caused by the heat of friction bringing the wood to 
ignition temperature.  But fire existed before the laws of thermal energy. 
Tides existed before the moon's gravitational effects on the ocean were 
theorized.  Babies were born with the skin color of their parents before the 
laws of genetic transfer made ir predictable.

Likewise, if things were valued before Pirsig, the sense of quality was a 
common human criterion of relative value or worth before ZMM and LILA were 
published.  Whatever inspires admiration or desire on the part of an 
observer has always been perceived as having value identifed with "quality". 
John Keats wrote "A thing of beauty is a joy forever" in 1821.  Robert 
Pirsig wrote his first book in 1973.  Neither author created beauty or 
quality.

(Just to keep things in perspective.)

Essentially yours,
Ham