[MD] Intellectual Level

[118]

Hi Ham,
Don't know if I am a Pirsigian the way it seems to be currently
drifting.  I subscribe more to his writing when he was closer to his
spiritual awakening, than that which he presents as a formed
metaphysics.  The metaphysics of quality was presented to the public
in about 1973.  It began to grow at that point.  For personal reasons,
Pirsig chose to write a second book wherein he provides further
analogies to the Quality perspective.  Some of these take me a bit of
twisting to see how they relate to the original apprehension of
Quality as is described in ZMM.  Any kind of severe insight always
takes a while to sort out and explain to others.  Often this is
impossible, but Pirsig provides some insight on what happened to him.
All of this happened as the result of an innocuous comment made in the
halls of a school he was teaching in.  I followed a similar path, and
ended up in what I considered to be a similar notion as that presented
in ZMM.  With that in mind, I will address your comments below.  Oh,
and thanks Mary for the post.

On Sat, Jan 1, 2011 at 2:24 PM, Ham Priday <hampday1 at verizon.net> wrote:


> 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.

[Mark]
Let me just say, that existence is no paradox, we are in the middle of
it at this time.  What does become a paradox is when we attempt to
relate it using logical truths.  This is because, as we understand the
term, truth is something which is not false.  In metaphysics, to show
something is not false is difficult.  Each premise must have an
accepted premise below it.  The beginning premise seems to be that we
are conscious.  Beneath that, there is not much.
>
> 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.

[Mark]
The author attempted to relate what happened, and what he got out of
it.  It was a shift in perspective, nothing secret.  His use of
Quality as opposed to Truth can be seen in the battle between rhetoric
and dialectic.  This is of course an analogy.  Mythos and logos was
another.  One cannot encompass mythos with logos.  As Ernst Cassirer
(and others of course throughout the ages) proposed in the 1800's that
intellectual thought has its basis in mythological thought.  I do not
see how it can be otherwise.  First there is the appreciation of
values, then there is the intellectualization of them.  We cannot
create values through the intellect, only represent them.
>
> 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".

[Mark]
Again, there are no contradictions to existence.  Those only arise
when one tries to represent it symbolically.  The paradox is in the
intellect, not in reality.  If there were paradoxes in reality, then
we could not exist.  Reality is consistent, has to be by definition.
I have to assume that by the value agent, you are pointing to
consciousness, and the point of view is the body's interaction with
that outside.  We could quibble on which comes first, existence or
consciousness, but that can be for another time.
>
> 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."

[Mark]
The paragraph above could mean that both value and goodness exist
prior to our differentiation of them.  We can only distort something
that already exists.  If we create such value, there is no distortion
possible.  Values are something we can judge, but not create.  Perhaps
you read the paragraph differently.  I can see that the author then
goes on the contradict himself, by saying that goodness cannot exist.
If this is true, then how can we distort it?
>
> 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."

[Mark]
Yes, the author points to the subjective nature of value.  This does
not mean that Value does not exist outside of that.  If this were
true, we would be creating Value (which I know is what you propose).
As with my previous (unanswered) post to you, I would have to ask
where does this creation of value come from?  We can say that the
water is cold or warm, this is a value judgement.  However, such a
judgement is based on something.  What is that something?  I would
say, that it is the spectrum of Quality.  The same can be said for
more cerebral values such as beauty.  This does not mean that everyone
sees the same beauty, since this would make beauty a Truth, which it
is not.  Thus the view through Quality instead of Truth is what I keep
trying to impart.
>
> 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.

[Mark]
Yes, there is a subjective self.  The difference we have is in
defining what that subjective self has the power to do.  Can it create
quality, or can it experience it?  The idea that we can create such a
thing does not ring true to me.  I would again have to ask, where does
this creation take place?
>
> I am curious as to how the Pirsigians will react to this philosophy, and
> whether it resolves what they see as paradoxical.
>
[Mark]
Well, there is my two cents.  I know, howling at the moon.  I will
wait patiently for a response from you.

Cheers, and Happy 2011.

Mark
> _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

>
> Moq_Discuss mailing list
> Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
> Archives:
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
> http://moq.org/md/archives.html
>