[MD] Intellectual Level

[Ham Priday]

Welcome back, Mary, and Happy New Year to you all --

On Sat. 1/01/11 at 10:49 AM, "Mary" <marysonthego at gmail.com> wrote:

> I wonder how long it's going to take someone to notice that
> the paradoxes should be a red flag.  The fact that there are
> unsolvable paradoxes should be telling us that the explanation
> upon which they rest is invalid.  Is that so hard to see?
>
> Pirsig, in his dark journey through insanity, 'witnessed' something
> that he was able to bring back only in part.  My sense is that
> when he 'returned' he brought with him a strong belief of having
> seen something that blows away all the paradoxes.  One problem
> he had was his utter inability to convey what he learned within the
> SOM framework.  Isn't this the same problem we have now?

An astute observation, Mary.  And however one extols the "truth" of Pirsig's 
Quality, or quotes the Zen masters to "prove" it, we are left with the fact 
that existence is a metaphysical paradox.

However, I don't believe the author in his delusional state was the 
recipient of  "the darkest secrets of the universe" that he was 
"embarrassed" to explain.  I think he simply chose to stop at the "Quality 
experience" and base his metaphysics entirely on that.  Had he experienced a 
true epiphany, it is unlikely that he would have settled for an incomplete 
ontology that would remain the subject of endless debate.  If I am right, 
the "paradox" Platt and Ian are lamenting is not the limitations of 
Intellect but of the MoQ itself.

Existence is a paradox because of the contradictions it exhibits. 
Contrariety and difference are in fact the bedrock of physical existence 
upon which all knowledge rests.  We can't know it any other way.  But rather 
than view contradiction as a problem, why not accept it as the foundation 
needed for the free realization of value?   Existence affords the value 
agent a "point of view".

There's a website which parallels mine that's titled "The Philosophy of 
Individual Valuism".  The author is anonymous, but his message is clear and 
unambiguous, as is evident from the Introduction:

"For the vast majority of humans, perceptions of value and goodness are too 
often distorted by lenses of culture and mysticism that assert what is 
supposed to be desired with little or no sound reasoning.  Individual 
Valuism is the philosophy that individuals are capable of judging values by 
themselves.  Moreover, values can only be defined relative to individuals. 
Outside of a mind with preferences, goodness cannot exist."

Here's what he says about Subjective Value:

"Something cannot be valued without a consciousness.  It makes no sense to 
say that anything is valued objectively because if there is no subject, 
there can be no preference for anything.  The act of charity cannot be found 
to be good without a mind any more than the smell of a flower can be found 
to be pleasant without a nose.  Unfortunately, most people are reared to 
believe the opposite.  They are taught that value is defined by some 
impersonal standard that one is supposed to have or find.  Such a standard 
cannot exist.  Value is a property that exists within minds.  Something can 
be valued by some people in the world, nobody in the world, or even everyone 
in the world, but there cannot be a value that is 'objective,' 'necessary,' 
or 'a priori.'  In other words, there cannot be anything that is desirable 
to, and independent of, every possible point of view.  Any belief that such 
a value exists can only be supported by a naïve argument that fails to make 
a connection between what exists and what ought to be.  In order for 
something to have value, there must be a point of view to perceive it. 
Knowing value requires a mind to think in the same way as knowing beauty 
requires eyes to see."

Mr. Pirsig has equated his Quality with Value.  Although the unnamed author 
does not claim to have developed a metaphysics, insofar as existential 
values are concerned, this on-line essay complements the MoQ as well as the 
"intellectual point of view", in my opinion.  (Of course, it assumes that 
the reader believes in a subjective self.)  You can access the full text at 
http://www.indval.org/IV.htm.

I am curious as to how the Pirsigians will react to this philosophy, and 
whether it resolves what they see as paradoxical.

Thanks, Mary, for your insightful comments.

Essentially speaking,
Ham

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

[Mary, previously]:
> You can see him struggle and finally relent when he decides to create
> the metaphysics anyway.  But he is not really satisfied, seeing it as a
> poor substitute for what he really experienced.  There's an air of
> frustration or maybe inadequacy to the way he feels about the whole
> thing.  I think he is secretly embarrassed since he knows that if he were
> to just come out and say what he 'witnessed' the SOM world would
> think he was a religious lunatic or an aggrandizing egomaniac - "Who
> am I to pretend to know the darkest secrets of the Universe?",
> he must say to himself.
>
> So, he prevaricates.
>
> Greetings and Happy New Year to all,
> Mary
>
> - The most important thing you will ever make is a realization.
>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: moq_discuss-bounces at lists.moqtalk.org [mailto:moq_discuss-
>> bounces at lists.moqtalk.org] On Behalf Of ARLO J BENSINGER JR
>> Sent: Friday, December 31, 2010 2:35 PM
>> To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
>> Subject: Re: [MD] Intellectual Level
>>
>> [Platt]
>> Well Ian, if you find a way intellect can avoid paradox or infinite
>> regress...
>>
>> [Arlo]
>> Symbolic representations of "reality" are inherently self-referential.
>> This is not something that can be overcome, it is just the way it is.
>> The eye cannot see itself, but positing an endless chain of eyes-
>> seeing-eyes is just a fool's view.
>>
>> Phædrus says, "All this is just an analogy." ... Of course it's an
>> analogy. Everything is an analogy. But the dialecticians don't know that.
>> That's why the Chairman missed that statement of Socrates. Phædrus
>> has caught it and remembered it, because if Socrates hadn't stated it
>> he wouldn't have been telling the "Truth." (ZMM)
>>
>> Einstein, Goebels, Magritte, Escher, Pirsig, Hofstadter, Campbell,
>> the Zen masters... they all saw this. Its a shame you do not.