[MD] Intellect? Never.

[Ham Priday]

Greetings, Jon --

> Ham,
>
> I see it the other way around, values presuppose purpose,
> intention, and consciousness, a mind, a Creator.

That's an interesting interpretation of values.  I think it can be said that 
value sensibility evidences or "anticipates" purpose without actually 
defining it or distinguishing it from a "master plan".  However, it is our 
individual value preferences that determine the meaning and nature of that 
purpose.  In other words, "purpose" is an individual construct.  The meaning 
of life depends on one's unique reality perspective, and what is not part of 
"your reality" can never be meaningful or purposeful for you.

> And when it comes down to it, is seems that moq gives to quality
> many of the basic, at least primary attributes of divinity. Q is said
> to be self-existent, the creator. The cause of all that is that has no
> cause. Q is claimed to be the great I AM. As God spoke to Moses,
> I AM that which IS, the Great first cause of all which can't be
> named-the self-existent one.

Few MoQers would admit this, since "divinity" is not in their vernacular. 
Although all philosophers strive to embrace fundamental concepts, you won't 
find Pirsig defining Quality as "the Creator",  "primary source", or "first 
cause".  But I agree that those connotations can be inferred from his 
thesis, despite the anti-theistic stance of the MoQ community in general.

Academics, in particular, seem compelled to denounce theism as a "vestige of 
religion", as if the spiritual quest of man had no value.  None of us is 
bound by religious or mythological dogma.  So perhaps it is time for the 
theists to come out of the closet and declare themselves, as have such 
anti-theists as Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens   As one who holds 
firmly to the tenet of an "uncreated" primary cause, I would encourage this.

Thanks for your insights, Jon.  It's refreshing to see metaphysical concepts 
articulated in theological terms.

Essentially yours,
Ham