[MD] Quality and the Higgs Field: An Analogy

[admin]

Hi Ham,

[Mary]
>> Is not DQ undifferentiated and undefined?

[Ham]
> Your question is based on a precept that is problematic for two reasons:
>
> 1.  Direct Quality (DQ) is the theoretical postulate of a philosopher who
> believes that the universe is inherently moral.  There is no empirical
> evidence to support such a concept, nor was the author willing to define his
> Quality.  (I happen to believe that the universe is amoral.)
>

[Mary replies]
Amoral as in there is no such thing as morals, or as in opposed to
morals in the sense of evil?  This is not meant to be a silly
question.  It pertains directly to what you assert further along.  If
you believe there is no such thing as morality, then any morality you
choose is nothing more than a figment of your imagination - it has no
basis in anything.  It's just the opinion of yourself.  On the other
hand, if the universe is ultimately evil, I'm not too happy to hear
that.

The "Quality is whatever you like" personal judgment tack, Pirsig
refutes by turning the whole notion on its head and asserting that
things don't have quality, but Quality has things.  Meaning, that our
personal judgments about morality, values, quality, etc. do not spring
from the free will of the ego but rather from the universal
recognition of Quality.

[Ham]
> 2.  To define the meaning of a word contextually or symbolically is to
> explain what it means or stands for.  However, the dictionary cites
> "demarcate" as the principal synonym of define, e.g., "a.) to fix or mark
> the limits or boundary of; b.) to characterize or distinguish."  This
> connotation unfortunately leads to the conclusion that what is defined is
> "separated or differentiated", as opposed to the undefined "holistic or
> unified".
>
> I think Mark views reality as both "undefined" (Sameness) and "defined"
> (Differentiated).  I don't know what he considers "sameness" to be, but by
> some strange logic he is persuaded that "Quality interacts with Sameness" to
> create Difference.  In effect he would have us believe that a holistic
> characteristic or property is the agent of differentiation.  This is
> illogical to me.
>
[Mary replies]
Don't know about Mark, but Pirsig would say that SQ is the static
fallout of experienced DQ.  Pirsig says there is much more to
'reality' than the static fallout we experience as subjects and
objects.  That's a major premise of ZMM.  I think Pirsig says mainly
that there is a great deal more to reality than we can define or
differentiate.  Another way to put that might be to say that we create
our reality from our experiences.  We see through the glass darkly and
are unable to experience the entirety of all possible realities.  DMB
says we dip our ladle into the stream of Quality and what we come back
with we call reality.

[Ham]
> The values we experience are NOT--cannot be--holistic for the very reason
> that they range from the desirable to the repugnant, the trivial to the
> magnificent, the most evil to the most moral.  It is the individual
> observer--"the measure of all things"--who makes the distinction between
> "high" and "low" Quality.  The ability to discriminate is not a property of
> Quality but of the value-sensible agent whose experience separates the good
> from the bad and what lies between.  Man's freedom to choose and to act in
> accordance with his choices is what determines the value of his reality.

[Mary replies]
That's the crux of the difference between the two views, isn't it?
Pirsig rejects the ego as the ultimate arbiter of reality and demotes
it to just another set of SPOVs.  It certainly has value, but is not
the right tool or best tool to use for interacting with the universe.
It is inadequate and incomplete.  That the MoQ as understood by SOM
(which is what you seem to be talking about) is also so, does not mean
the two are equal, and I would say that making the effort to transcend
the ego in the attempt to understand the universe is a positive step
forward.

>[Ham]
> I know you understand this instinctually, Mary, but have been persuaded by
> the Pirsigians that Quality is an "untouchable" premise that must be
> accepted as metaphysical truth.  The truth is that metaphysical theories are
> open to falsification just as are scientific theories.
>
[Mary Replies]
We are all persuaded by the ideas that resonate with us.  We are each
at different points along different roads.

[Ham]
> You have expressed some profound thoughts of your own on the MD.
> Unfortunately, this is not one of them.
>
[Mary replies]
I do not require your approval, nor you mine.  What is of value is the
conversation.

Thanks for that!
Mary