[MD] BeTteR-neSs (undefined or otherwise)

[Dan Glover]

Hello everyone

On Wed, Nov 3, 2010 at 4:53 PM, Ham Priday <hampday1 at verizon.net> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Nov 2, 2010 at 11:26 AM, Dan Glover daneglover at gmailmail.com wrote:
>
> Hello everyone
>
> [Ham to dmb, previously]:
>>
>> We all participate in a subject/object world that is the source
>> of all our knowledge. The conscious experience of that world
>> has its locus in the individual self. The MoQ that Pirsig
>> "designed to replace it" would have us pretend that we are
>> living an illusion, that there are no subjects and objects, no
>> freedom to choose, no role for mankind other than to go with
>> the flow to "betterness" that is automatic in the author's
>> evolutionary Quality.
>
> [Dan]:
>>
>> Since we've agreed to disagree, I would like to point out some
>> possible flaws in your thinking here, Ham. This subject-object world
>> isn't primary. It is not the source of our knowledge by any stretch of
>> the imagination.
>Ham:
> Can you provide a known fact or example of knowledge that is not based on
> empirical experience?

Dan:
I am not sure what you mean... are you saying subject-object
metaphysics is empirical?

>Dan:
>> We have been trained to believe that a subject observes objects
>> and both are independent of one another, but it is just training that
>> makes it so. Quantum theory has shown that it is impossible to
>>  measure an object without disturbing it... observer and observed
>> are linked... there is no independent observer.
>Ham:
> Who "trained" you to recognize objects as external and independent of you?
> Physicists who investigate quantum phenomena have concluded that observation
> (i.e., the observer) affects the relational parameters by which such
> phenomena are measured.  Since these parameters (mass, velocity, energy,
> gravity, etc.) are intellectual precepts to begin with, what this suggests
> is that experiential knowledge is limited to the micro/macro range of human
> perception, and quantum physics exceeds our reach.

Dan:
The training starts as soon as a baby reaches out to the world, and of
course the culture that the baby grows up in has a great influence on
the way they perceive the world. I think most physicists have a
built-in assumption that what they are studying is "out there,"  real,
independent entities waiting to be discovered. Perhaps that's why it
seems so weird when they discover this not to be so.

>Dan:
>> But RMP does not dismiss individual freedom, at least as far as I
>> know. Maybe you could point out some relevant quotes.  He does
>> however say that the individual is fictitious, that both science and
>> Buddhism have come to the same conclusions, and that any philosophy
>> based on individualism is fraught with problems, which I have
>> explained in an earlier post.
>Ham:
> You won't find it, Dan.  "Individual freedom" is notable by its absence in
> Pirsig's works.  It's troubling to me that a full-blown, allegedly
> humanistic philosophy would ignore free will, personal choice, individual
> intentionality, and a proper epistemology for cogizant awareness.  Simply
> defining the conscious self as an "interrelated pattern of Quality" doesn't
> fill the bill.  Someone here recently suggested that Freedom is more
> intrinsic to Dynamic Quality than to man, and this strikes me as missing the
> whole point of human existence.  Certainly a "philosophy based on
> individualism is fraught with problems"; but so is a philosophy based on
> Value.  By rejecting both individual subjectivity and empirical reality, the
> author creates more problems than his MoQ resolves, in my opinion.

Dan:
He doesn't reject subjectivity and empirical reality though. I am not
sure where you get that idea. Actually, the MOQ defines consciousness
as defining Dynamic Quality. It's just that Dynamic Quality can never
be fully defined.

>
> [Ham, previously]:
>>
>> In ZMM Pirsig says ""When one person suffers from a delusion,
>> it is called insanity. When many people suffer from a delusion it is
>> called a Religion."
>> In the Copleston Annotations, Pirsig notes: "The MOQ is atheistic".
>> Is this not a rejection of religion? And what supports your conclusion
>> that one can be religious and reject "faith and supernaturalism"?
>
> [Dan]:
>>
>> Religion is a coming together. The MOQ is anti-theistic, not
>> atheistic. Theism is the belief in a supernatural power, be it God,
>> Allah, Jehovah... whatever. The MOQ is empirical.  It does not
>> subscribe to supernatural solutions. Neither does the MOQ
>> denouce religion, however.
>Ham:
> The MOQ may be empirical in approach -- but radically so, as it does not
> acknowledge
> the objective reality of traditional empiricism.  Again, you and dmb dismiss
> the fact that Pirsig referred to his own philosophy as "atheistic" and
> denounced religion in general.

Dan:
Again, the MOQ doesn't denounce religion. It equates religious
mysticism with Dynamic Quality, thereby bringing religion under the
umbrella of Quality. And the MOQ isn't atheistic... it is
anti-theistic. There is a difference.

>Ham:
> How do you define "supernatural"?  If it means "transcending nature", then I
> submit that metaphysics itself is supernatural by default.  The author had
> no use for metaphysics because it was "nothing but definitions", and a
> definition would reduce his concept to a static pattern.  Perhaps he
> declined to posit DQ as the primary source because he wanted to avoid a
> "supernatural connotation" for this otherwise ineffable force.  Then again,
> perhaps we shall never know.

Dan:

Well, obviously Robert Pirsig did have a use for metaphysics, or he
wouldn't have written one. And yes, everything we can talk about is
static quality. Dynamic Quality isn't posited as a prmary source in
the way you seem to mean. It is the source and the destination of
static quality pattens of value. We cannot define it by what it is so
much as we may by what it is not.
>Ham:
> I'm sorry you disagree with my fundamentals, Dan.  But thank you for the
> kind response.

Dan:
Oh, you are welcome, Ham. And perhaps if we didn't disagree, we would
have nothing to learn from one another. Thank you for your time.

Dan