[MD] BeTteR-neSs (undefined or otherwise)

[Ham Priday]

To all MOQers --

On Sat, Oct. 30 at 5:30 PM, Dan Glover wrote:

> Hi Ham
> Thank you for your response. I agree that "betterness" is relative. I
> have a problem with an independent "observer", however. Quality, or
> "betterness", doesn't reside in the observer or the observed. It comes
> before that distinction. Remember the part in ZMM where Phaedrus
> goes between the horns of subject and object?
>
> In light of Robert Pirsig's writings, it seems clear that the MOQ
> would state there are no "free choices." We are suspended in a vast
> web of social and intellectual patterns that make up our culture. This
> "self" that you posit is a fiction... albeit a convenient fiction.
> Point to it. Where is the self?
>
> We must agree to disagree, Ham. I know from reading your past
> posts that you've put much thought into your philosophy. However,
> it seems at odds with the MOQ in very fundamental ways. The
> "individual" is a fiction. There is no observer sitting detached and apart
> from the universe. Within the framework of the MOQ, the "individual"
> is a set of co-mingled patterns of value. When society establishes law,
> it does so by implementing both social and intellectual patterns of value
> to ensure the cooperation of biological patterns that might otherwise
> usurp society. Who was it that said you'd get farther with a smile and
> a gun than just a smile? The MOQ would seem to agree.
>
> An "authentic" society would seem to sit apart from the inauthentic.
> It would have no chance of becoming "better" and would die of stagnation.

This concerns me profoundly.  Dan is a charter MD'er whose masterful 
compilation of Pirsig's statements
(Lila's Child) has earned him respect as a foremost interpreter of the 
author's philosophy.  I think this post underscores the fundamental 
differences between the Metaphysics of Quality and my Philosophy of Essence 
more startlingly than any other comments I have read.  It's frustrating to 
hear complaints that I "fail to understand" the MoQ; much more vexing is a 
message from one who comprehends Essentialism sufficiently to cite those 
issues that make it "fundamentally at odds" with what I do understand of 
Pirsig's thesis.

Of course this comes as no surprise to me.  Indeed, it should be obvious to 
most of you that my ontology has fundamental differences with the "official 
doctrine".  In a sense, I feel some empathy for Bodvar who lost a long, hard 
battle to advance his idiosyncratic concept of Intellect.  Inasmuch as one's 
belief system is developed over time and tends to be fixated at a certain 
stage, I consider philosophic differences a matter of personal choice.  As 
an individualist, I'm also opposed to authoritarian obeisance.  None of that 
was hinted at here; on the contrary, Dan's argument was offered in the 
spirit of "agreeing to disagree."

Before I am ejected from this forum for noncompliance, however, let me 
stress (in Dan's words) what being a Pirsigian requires you to believe, and 
how this is viewed by an Essentialist.

Dan agrees that "'betterness' is relative," which means it is NOT an 
absolute state of the universe, as some here insist.  However, he denies 
that the 'observer' has anything to do with it.  In fact, he rejects the 
very notion of an "independent observer" because, he says, "the 'self' is a 
fiction."  Like Marsha, he asks: "Where is the self?  Point to it."

Morality is not an expression of individual value judgments, since "the 
'individual' is a set of co-mingled patterns of value."  Nor is man, as 
defined by Pirsig, a free agent: "it seems clear that the MOQ would state 
there are no 'free choices'".  Says Dan: "When society establishes law, it 
does so by implementing both social and intellectual patterns of value 
[presumably residing in the Quality aura] to ensure the cooperation of 
biological patterns that might otherwise usurp society."

Now, if betterness (Goodness) is relative, it has to be relative to the 
observer who realizes it.  If there is no observer ('self' or 'agent') there 
is no moral value realized.  Then again, if the universe is totally moral 
(as Pirsig suggests), there is no NEED to realize it.  Instead, mankind 
automatically yields to the universal principal.  Yes, this is 
"determinism"; and I happen to believe, along with the Founders of our free 
republic, that man is endowed by his Creator with Life, Liberty, and the 
Pursuit of Happiness. What is Liberty if not Freedom?  How is man a free 
creature if his moral behavior is determined by Natural Law instead of by 
his own value-sensibility?

Finally, assuming you are not an authoritarian, do you accept Dan Glover's 
premise that "an 'authentic' society would have no chance of becoming 
"better" and would die of stagnation"?

I appreciate Dan's honesty and candor, and am grateful that he chose this 
opportunity to confront me with the contradictions I'm responsible for 
articulating.  At the same time, I submit that resolving these fundamental 
issues is crucial in completing everyone's personal belief system.  If you 
are uncomfortable with the conclusions posited for the MoQ, can you with 
full integrity endorse them for yourself and others?

So, just what do you believe?  Think about it folks.  Tuesday is Election 
Day in the U.S. and I've told people "it doesn't hurt you a bit to cast your 
vote in the ballot box, but it can hurt you a lot if you don't."  By the 
same token, your personal persuasions are yours to choose; the quality of 
your life-experience depends on them.

Essentially speaking,
Ham