[MD] Reductionism

[Ham Priday]

Marsha, Platt [Ron mentioned] --


[Marsha]:
> Reductionism:  "Everything in the Universe can be understood in terms
> of quarks and leptons."

[Platt]:
> Nicely summarized. Ask a reductionist "Where do quarks and leptons
> come from?" you'll get a blank stare or from an honest reductionist the
> reply, "Don't ask."

Quarks and leptons notwithstanding, the universe is understood in terms of 
subjects and objects.  This has nothing to do with theoretical physics or 
scientific principles.  It's an empirical truth that we know from 
experience.  Just because we don't know precisely what objects are or what 
the nature of "selfness" is doesn't mean they don't exist or that they must 
be "explained away" in order for us to be "enlightened".  That's no 
philosophical breakthrough; it's just plain foolishness.

If we insist on being reductionists, we need to acknowledge that fundamental 
division of existence beyond which all else is speculation.  Although 
Descartes is no longer fashionable among the elitists, his Cogito stands as 
a lasting reminder that existence is an experiential duality.

Ron recently quoted LILA to reveal Phaedrus's train of thought on this 
issue:

"But he realized that sooner or later he was going to have to stop carping 
about how bad subject-object metaphysics was and say something positive for 
a change. Sooner or later he was going to have to come up with a way of 
dividing Quality that was better than subjects and objects. He would have to 
do that or get out of metaphysics entirely. It's all right to condemn 
somebody else's bad metaphysics but you can't replace it with a metaphysics 
that consists of just one word."

The problem with this line of reasoning is that metaphysics is not just 
"words" (one or many) but concepts explained by words.  Pirsig tried to make 
the seven-letter word Quality a metaphysical concept, which it cannot be 
without an ontology to support it.  So, "to come up with a way of dividing 
Quality that was better than subjects and objects," he substituted the 
adjectives "static" and "dynamic".   Then, under the influence of 
native-American culture supplemented with a little peyote, he had an 
epiphany of sorts.

"To cling to Dynamic Quality alone apart from any static patterns is to 
cling to chaos. He saw that much can be learned about Dynamic Quality by 
studying what it is not rather than futilely trying to define what it is. 
Static quality patterns are dead when they are exclusive, when they demand 
blind obedience and suppress Dynamic change. But static patterns, 
nevertheless, provide a necessary stabilizing force to protect Dynamic 
progress from degeneration. Although Dynamic Quality, the Quality of 
freedom, creates this world in which we live, these patterns of static 
quality, the quality of order, preserve our world. Neither static nor 
Dynamic Quality can survive without the other."

The "chaos" he attributed to "Dynamic Quality alone" may have been a result 
of his altered state of mind, as there is no logic to support the view that 
a primary source is chaotic in the absence of patterns.  On the contrary, a 
pure source -- Quality, Value, or Essence -- has no disparate elements but 
is homogeneous, whereas chaos is defined as "a confused heterogeneous 
agglomeration."  Obviously, Phaedrus's focus was limited to what was "inside 
the box"  (experiential patterns) rather than the primary source or nature 
of the box.  In fact, the MoQ thesis never transcends the physical universe. 
It is a hierarchical ontology based on a euphemistic or "romantic" notion of 
Quality.  As such the MoQ falls seriously short of what classical 
philosophers would regard as a metaphysics.

Whether physical existence is ultimately "real" or not, the S/O split is the 
fundamental reality of existence.  We can't make a metaphysics out of 
objective reality any more than we can impart Quality to it.  What is sadly 
missing in Pirsig's philosophy is the sensible agent, without which neither 
quality nor value can be realized.

Thanks for your time and, hopefully, your understanding,
Ham