[MD] Betterness - 4 levels of!

[Ham Priday]

Greetings, Tim --

Nice to meet you, and welcome to the MD.


> Ham,
> I might jump in real quick,
>
>> [Ham] My paradigm here is that of the individual self
>> looking at its Absolute Source from the "outside",
>> as it were, and creating an objective reality to represent
>> the value realized.
>
> Ham, I know next to nothing about your position, so I don't want
> to trouble about too much now.  I'd also like to say that I have
> some reservations about Pirsig and the MoQ. While I do suspect
> that there will never be a way to calculate what the 'right' thing to
> do is, not at any moment, I think that there is much that could be
> done to bound that decision / state / process / whatever it is.
> I have wondered if Pirsig was afraid of his insanity, and if that
> prevented him from pursuing the highest aspirations that Phaedrus
> had before ... everything.  I have wondered if he settled.

You raise an interesting point, Tim.  According to Wikipedia, Pirsig spent 
time in and out of psychiatric hospitals between 1961 and 1963.  ZMM and 
LILA were published in 1974 and 1991, respectively.  (You can peruse 
www.psybertron.org for a timeline of the author's activities.)  Many feel 
that the first book defined the Quality thesis more "accurately" than the 
second.  Personally, I found the paper titled Subjects, Objects, Data and 
Values [SODV, presented in June of 1995.] more useful for my purposes, as it 
discusses the paradox of quantum physics and diagrams the four levels upon 
which the MoQ is based.  Just how a nervous breakdown in the '60s affected 
the author's reasoning  or philosophical persuasion remains a matter for 
speculation.  But it's quite possible that he avoided discussing spiritual 
or theological issues for fear that it might be associated with his 
breakdown and treatment.

For example, in response to a query I had sent him in July, 2004, Pirsig 
wrote:
"My problem with 'essence' is not that it isn't there or that it is not the 
same as Quality. It is that positivists usually deny 'essence' as something 
like 'God' or 'the absolute' and dismiss it [as] experimentwally 
unverifiable, which is to say they think you are some kind of religious 
nut."

I think you can see that being considered "religious" was a pejorative that 
concerned him.

> I also say something you said yestarday, I think you were talking
> with Platt, and I don't recall the words (though I could find them
> if its important - and they were repeated today, as I now recall)...
> anyway, they suggested to me that you have the desire for more
> formality.  Me too.  I have a feeling that something is ripening in
> this direction. Though I have had similar feeling before, so it could
> just be a turd.
>
> While I was reading ZAMM and Lila, I felt that I was coming at it
> from across the aisle.  Anyway, my paradigm - and I would ask you:
> what if you look at reality as the "absolute source" trying to know 
> itself?

That's an astute observation, Tim.  I'm convinced that there has to be a 
reciprocal function in the dynamics of Value between the "estranged agent" 
and its absolute Source.  In some way that we humans cannot know, Essence is 
made complete or "perfected" through its realization by a an infinite number 
of negated "others".  I suppose your analogy is as reasonable as any other.

> do the constraints of this process produce a physics?

I'm afraid I am not qualified to answer that question.
I think Mark is a biophysicist.  Have you asked him?

Thanks for your interest, Tim.  I hope you enjoy the forum.

--Ham