[MD] Protestant Capitalism

[plattholden at gmail.com]

Hey Ham,

> Platt --
> 
>  > Hey Ham,
> >
> > Given that the MOQ is quite clear that the top two tiers in the
> > hierarchy are man made in response to Dynamic Quality I can't
> > say the scenario is inhuman.  Am I missing your point?
> 
> Apparently you are.  "Man made in response to Dynamic Quality" is 
> unintelligible to me.  Is it supposed to mean that DQ "creates" man?  If so, 
> whose "response" accounts for the creation?


Answer: The responses described in Chapter 11 of Lila. I assume you 
have a copy.


> The point you are missing is one that you yourself called to my attention 
> years ago: "The individual is the cognizant locus of the physical universe." 


That sounds a lot more like you than me. I have stated a number of 
times that I don't subscribe to philosophical idealism. Static patterns 
exist whether I personally experience them or not.


> This conscious locus is not society or its collective "intellect", as Pirsig 
> would have it.  It's not "a collection of inorganic and biological 
> patterns," either.  Rather, it's the subjective awareness of the individual 
> "knower".  And it "exists" in relation to its experience of value as finite 
> beingness (objects).

You assume there is such a pattern as "conscious locus." To me 
consciousness is awareness is experience is Quality and is everywhere 
all at once. I merely tap into it as does my cat, UTOE, and all other 
creatures, great and small.

 
> A hierarchy made up of physical and behavioral atttributes has no sentient 
> locus, thus cannot "be aware" or "have experience".  Only an individual 
> agent can do that.  That's what being-aware is.  All sentient organisms 
> represent a fusion of two primary existential essents: Sensibility and 
> Beingness.  Human being is unique in its sensibility to value 
> (self-awareness) and its capacity to reason (intellect).  These attributes 
> are not distributed throughout the universe as an extracorporeal realm or 
> level but exist only as individuated psycho-organic entities.  It is this 
> individuation that makes possible the realization (and objectivization) of 
> value (i.e., Quality) by a free agent.


Perhaps we agree that individual agents -- from particles to atoms to 
cells to organisms to plants to animals to humans -- tap into universal 
consciousness, i.e. experience/Quality. Or perhaps not. It's difficult to 
tell where your "psycho-organic entities" begin.


> As I've said before, the evolutionary hierarchy is flawed on two counts.  It 
> assumes that value (quality) exists independently of sensibility, and it 
> denies subjectivity 


It denies subjectivity but doesn't say Quality exists independently of 
sensibility/experience. Rather, it is sensibility/experience.


> This is epistemologically unsound.  The hierarchy is 
> "inhuman" in the sense that it denies value-sensibility as the essence of 
> man.


"Value sensibility as the essence of man" is your assumption. Nor does 
the hierarchy deny value-sensibility. Rather, it is pervasive at all levels. 


>  Because it also fails to posit a primary (metaphysical) source for 
> existence, Pirsig's thesis is limited to causal explanations of process in 
> time.


It posits Quality not as the source but as existence itself having no 
beginning and no end. Quality is what is.


> I know this won't satisfy you, Platt.  But it should at least help you 
> understand what I consider to be the MoQ's shortcomings.


Likewise. But I don't see that we're really so far apart. Your Essence is
my Quality. The only difference is you don't see Quality happening until 
humans came along. But I see Quality always there, like Essence.


But just so there's no misunderstanding. Pirsig said the subject-object 
division you champion is a high-quality intellectual pattern. It's just that 
he thinks, for the reasons he cites in Lila, the Dynamic-static Quality is 
better. I agree. But I could be wrong, he could be wrong, you could be 
wrong, we all could be wrong. Which is why I took up painting. No one 
can say that my painting is wrong. All one can say is, "I know what I 
like." 

With respect and regards,
Platt

P.S. How is "hope and change" working out for you?