[MD] Pirsig's theory of truth

[Mary]

Hi Ham and John and Joe AND DMB and Steve and Bo,

See below...

On Behalf Of Ham Priday
> Sent: Sunday, May 23, 2010 2:23 AM
> Hi Mary (John and Joe quoted) --
> 
> 
> > [John speaking to Bo]:
> > the main point of the whole MoQ - Reality's fundament is Value.
> > Which is rendered meaningless by the "Quality = Reality"
> > formulation.  I don't buy that substitution a bit.  Reality is
> > formed by Value, not the same thing at all.
> 
> [Mary]:
> > You're right that it's not the same thing at all.  To say reality is
> > 'formed' by value is to ascribe to the 'blessed trinity' of subject,
> > object, and value.  This is SOM with Value as whipped topping
> > which is easily demoted to 'the value is in the eye of the beholder'.
> > If you go this way, the whole MoQ devolves into just another
> > S/O Metaphysics.
> >
> > Reality does equal Quality.
> 
> [Joe]:
> > In the SOM I studied, a schema for words was Substance and
> > Accidents that inhered in the substance. Substance is a noun
> > and Reality is a noun.  Quality, on the other hand, is an adjective
> > which inheres in a substance. "Reality does equal Quality" is a
> > confusing equality of poetic license.
> 
[Ham]:
> For what it's worth to you folks, I have to side with Joe and John on
> the
> "value" of Value over Quality in this context.  (Incidentally, Joe, my
> dictionary lists both terms as nouns.)  But I am a "valuist", and the
> connotation of Value as "something desired" makes it eminently more
> suitable
> to me than Quality for connecting awareness to the phenomenon
> experienced.
> Quality, in comparison, is generally associated with a product's
> inherent
> properties rather than its valuistic appeal or attraction to the
> observer.
> 
> Mary complains that saying "reality is 'formed' by value is to ascribe
> to
> the 'blessed trinity' of subject, object, and value."  Yet, if a
> valuistic
> essence is the common denominator, as Pirsig suggests, is it not the
> very
> link that unifies subject and object and overcomes duality?   Why is
> that a
> flawed concept?
> 
> In my opinion, equating Reality to Quality is tantamount to saying
> Reality
> is good or efficacious, as if the alternative could be "better".  But
> when
> Reality is posited as Value, the equation takes on an ontological
> meaning,
> suggesting that a cosmic process is afoot that involves our highest
> aspirations.  Indeed, I'm surprised that a wordsmith of Pirsig's
> calibre
> should choose such a prosaic term as "quality" to express his
> fundamental
> reality.  (I suppose this makes him a 'qualityist' instead of a
> valuist. ;-)
> 
> Of course, as an essentialist, I don't regard existence (the valuistic
> "reality" Pirsig has defined) as fundamental.  But I do support his
> view
> that Value (= Quality) is the ground of experiential existence, as I
> suspect
> all three of you do.  I consider the Metaphysics of Quality a
> courageous
> step in the evolution of empirical philosophy.  What it lacks is an
> ultimate
> source -- namely, the uncreated immutable progenitor of provisional
> otherness.
> 
[Mary Replies] 
If you believe subjects and objects are real things which have the
attributes of value or quality, then your statements make perfect sense.
This is the way humanity has generally viewed the world forever. This is SOL
which has evolved into SOM. 

Subject-Object Logic insists that we rely on our senses.  That is a good
thing.  Our ancestors might have been eaten by tigers if they had not.  As
evolution progressed, we eventually began to layer an entire metaphysical
belief system on top of this - a Subject-Object Metaphysics that assumes
this value is inherent in the object and not the other way around.  But the
MoQ says the Value or Quality "has" the subjects and objects.  Where Value
and Quality are synonymous as defined in the MoQ.

In a different thread, DMB and Steve have been debating truth and in that
thread DMB recently stated that the MoQ is but one philosophy that says
this.  He quotes James et al but does so in terms that assume a "knower" and
a "known" - a subject and an object.  He asserts that this is ok because
people who understand the existing metaphysical literature will know what he
means.

DMB, do you see how your arguments confuse the issue unnecessarily?  Ham, I
take you to be well-meaning and earnest in your admiration for Pirsig, to
have read both books, and participated here for some time; and yet, for all
that, you still do not agree that Quality 'has' the subjects and objects -
not the other way around - and Ham, this is 'essential' (sorry to nab your
word) to grasping the MoQ.

Thanks,
Mary