[MD] Bitterness over Betterness

[Ham Priday]

Hi Mark --

I was beginning to wonder when you might chime in.


> Thanks for starting this one, I have to admit that I can't
> keep up with all the responses, so I will simply start with
> this one, since we seem to operate on a Good level.
>
> Like Dan, I am not confused except in figuring out how
> to explain some things to you.  What Pirsig is stating here
> (and believe me, I know ZMM as well as anybody), is
> the difference between "knowing", and intellectually
> knowing.  Marsha puts is well somewhere below.  There
> is no flaw in logic.  Pirsig is just coming from a different
> place than you are. We can easily know things without
> knowing them.  In fact that is what we do with 99% of
> our existence.  The intellectual knowing is just a structure
> of words used for communicating.  Nothing more.  There
> is no foundation underneath them, they are completely
> circular, each word being defined by other words.

In other words, we don't really "know" Ohm's law and Einstein's Relitivity 
theory; we just accept them as objective knowledge that can be expressed in 
equations.  Is that what you mean by "knowing without knowing"?

[Ham quoting ZMM}:
> His logic went downhill from there:
>
> "If no one knows what it is, then for all practical purposes it
> really does exist. What else are the grades based on? Why
> else would people pay fortunes for some things and throw
> others in the trash pile?"

[Mark]:
> First to explain Pirsig a little in the quote above.  He is alluding
> to the Ineffable.  Yes, we all "know" what Quality is.  But when
> one uses the thin net of words to catch it, it escapes through
> the holes. As we have spoken before, the definition of Quality
> is part of Quality, so how to you enclose it?  The point is,
> if we cannot talk and share about it, how can we agree that
> it exists?  Capice?  Grades are based on Quality, but can we
> describe using words what it is?  No.  At best we can provide
> analogies which help in agreement of it.  This is not a matter
> for simple logic, never was, never will be.  Sorry if that was
> what you are expecting.  The term Spiritual Rationality can
> be almost anything, but it is not necessarily The Rational as we
> approach it in the West at this time.  Open your mind and let
> the breeze in.

You mistake my motive, Mark.  I am not looking for logical syllogisms or 
even analogies to illustrate them.  I am simply examining what we know from 
experience that can justifiably be encompassed in a metaphysical ontology. 
And I have found nothing that supports Mr. Pirsig's invention of Quality as 
an independent entity or source.

> I do not think the objective "self" is incompatible with MoQ.
> Quite the contrary, it tries to break it down, something which
> you refuse to do in your ontology.  Somehow for you the self
> is some kind of separation, and that's it.  In MoQ we delve a
> little bit deeper than that.  If you are referring to human conscious
> sensibility, then I would have to emphatically say that Quality
> has to exist outside of our sensibility.  We do not have the divine
> power to make these things up.  We just represent them in our
> own "human way".

First of all, I regard the self as "subjective" in relation to an "objective 
world".  By "trying to break it down," I assume you mean into inorganic, 
biological, social, and intellectual levels.  No, the self is 
value-sensibility, and sensibility is not an existent like your four levels 
but an 'essent' which is compartmentalized only by experience. And Value, 
what we desire or aspire to, isn't something that has to be "made up".  We 
feel it immanently; it is our psycho-emotional state at any given time. 
"Representing" value (as objective phenomena) is an intellectual process 
that does involve brain and sensory activity (organic) on the act of 
experience.  And, yes, human beings are equipped with "the power" to 
actualize the appearance of physical objects.

> All the atoms in this universe are tending towards betterness,
> that is the only reason why we are as well.

If that is true, then experience is not "the cutting edge of reality" as 
Pirsig states, but an effect or consequence of atomic activity.  What you 
are touting is a kind of godless teleology in which evolution determines 
what the individual experiences, values, and responds to -- in other words, 
a value system without a free agent.  I cannot accept such an automated 
ontology.

[Ham]:
> Of course, reducing the individual to "interrelated quality patterns",
> as Pirsig does, makes it difficult to understand how we have the
> capability to realize goodness in our relational world.  Nor does it
> help matters to insist that we are "composed of value".

[Mark]:
> It is not difficult to understand at all if you enter his world.  You
> seem to be taking the choice of finding fault rather than finding
> Good.  This is of course your choice, but it is a negative one in
> my opinion.  If there is no inherent self, then goodness is realized
> Co-Dependently.  This make perfect sense if you think about it.

Value (goodness) IS realized co-dependently -- the co-dependent contingents 
are Self and Other, which translates to value-sensibility in the conscious 
self.  All I'm saying is that realization of goodness is primary to 
actualization of physical reality.  Insamuch as actualization is 
experiential,.it would seem that my ontogeny is closer to Pirsig's "cutting 
edge" than yours.

> According to Buddha, Morality is the highest value, and is
> in essence close to your Essence.  Are there degrees of
> separation in your ontology, or is it all or nothing?  The beauty
> of a melody exists in the presence of a tone deaf person,
> and you know it!

Morality is a social product of man's value-sensibility, not natural 
evolution.  As you know, I hold to the axiom that "man is the measure of all 
things."  And unrealized value -- whether it be Beauty, Order, Goodness, or 
Justice -- does not exist.  So, no, melodic beauty is not realized by a 
tone-deaf person.  This may be one of the things you call "intellectual 
knowing", but it is not realized value.

> Aside from being everything possible and uncreated,
> how do you define Essence in concrete terms?

I have defined Essence as the ultimate, uncreated, unconditional Reality and 
primary source of all appearances.  Cusanus theorized it as the "Not other". 
Eckhart romanticized it as "absolute IS-ness."  Others have called it that 
without which nothing can be.  Since Essence transcends the concreteness of 
finitude, this is the best I can offer by way of definition.

I'm glad I haven't hit a sensitive nerve, Mark.  But I do wish my arguments 
could penetrate your value sensibility.

Cheers,
Ham