[MD] Thus spoke Lila

[Ham Priday]

Hi Horse [Tim mentioned] --

> '=' in the sense that Quality = Reality is saying that they are the
> same thing.
> If I refer to Venus, the Morning Star or the Evening Star by saying Venus 
> = Morning Star = Evening Star, I'm not saying there is an equivalence, I'm 
> saying that they are exactly identical.  The only difference is the form 
> of the linguistic label.  There is no difference in their value.

Pirsig appears to equate everything that one could call "subjective".  Thus, 
his multi-equivalency equation (Experience = Quality = Reality = Morality) 
postulates a subjectivist worldview.  While that effectively eliminates 
objects as "real", I do not see how it eliminates the subjects who are aware 
of these precepts or aesthetic contingencies.  In my opinion, reducing the 
subjective self  to a pattern (patterns?) of Quality does not make the 
subject "less real" than the precepts it recognizes.

This gives me an opportunity to confirm a statement I made to Tim.  Did 
Pirsig not also equate Quality to Value as the equivalency: Value = Quality? 
As this is important to me, I'd appreciate learning the source for this 
equation.  (We believe it may be included in the SODV paper.)

In conceding to me that Pirsig had indeed equated Quality to Value, Tim 
added ...
>  and even though he did equate quality and value (he moreso
> equated quality and morality), Quality was the source of quality.

In your opinion, is there any difference between Pirsig's 'Quality' (with 
the initial cap) and 'quality' (lower case)?   If there is, I must have 
missed something in my interpretation of the Quality thesis.

Thanks, Horse.

Ham

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

On 08/12/2010 06:47, Ham Priday wrote:
>
> Hi Horse --
>
> On Sunday 12/5/10, 2:06 PM, you said to Marsha:
>
>> The MoQ is a metaphysics and is definable. Quality is not definable. So 
>> if Reality = Quality
>> then Reality is not definable either. So to say that MoQ = Reality means 
>> that there is a
>> huge contradiction - i.e. it's a mistake.
>> So MoQ cannot be Reality.
>
> I agree that the name of an intellectual pursuit is not the same identity 
> as the body of knowledge it refers to, just as the title of a novel is not 
> the same as the story recounted in the book. However, your response to 
> Marsha leaves Pirsig's "equivalency postulate" hanging in limbo. Not to 
> exacerbate this issue, but by way of clarifying it, let me paraphrase your 
> argument with a similar one drawn from the objective sciences.
>
> Cosmology is a science which defines Reality as the Cosmos. The MoQ is a 
> metaphysics which equates Reality to Quality. So if Reality = Quality, 
> does it also equal the Cosmos? Or are the cosmologists mistaken?
>
> Equivalence means: 1) equal or interchangeable in value, quantity, 
> significance, etc.; 2) having the same or a similar effect or meaning. By 
> these criteria, I submit that equating something called X with something 
> called Y is "defining" it.
>
> Two questions:
> If you do not accept equivalency as definitive, by what logic does Mr. 
> Prsig equate two indefinable things?
> And, if metaphysics is definable, how can the equation Reality = Quality 
> be a metaphysical postulate?
>
> The truth of the matter is that what is not experiencable to human beings 
> is indefinable. Therefore, attempts to define ultimate Reality as a 
> qualitative abstraction, such as Being, Consciousness, Energy, Value, or 
> Goodness are no more valid than equating it to a known physical entity. 
> Nicholas of Cusa in the 15th century came up with the principle of the 
> 'Not-other', which is arguably the best working definition possible for 
> metaphysical reality.
>
> Essentially speaking,
> Ham