[MD] The Dynamics of Value

[Ham Priday]

On Sat, Mar 5, 2011 at 12:24 PM, "Andre Broersen" <andrebroersen at gmail.com> 
wrote:

> Ham:
> The adage that "everything gets known by some knower"
> has a poetic ring to it that makes us feel good, but it's without
> epistemological foundation.
>
> Andre:
> This is exactly what Pirsig means. You say: '[it] makes us feel good' 
> (which is a statement about value) but dismiss it before you are even 
> finished... .
> 'See how this works? A thing doesn't exist because we have never observed 
> it. The reason we have never observed it is because we
> have never looked for it. And the reason we have never looked for it
> is that it is unimportant, it has no value and we have better things to 
> do'.(ibid, p 147).

I could not find this Lila quote in my softback edition, but it is worth 
analyzing.
If a thing doesn't exist because we have never observed it, then it is our 
observation (i.e., experience) that "creates" the thing.  A thing can have 
neither "importance" nor "value" if it is not known or experienced by an 
observer.  So Pirsig's assertion that "the reason we have never looked for 
it is that it is unimportant" makes no sense, unless something other than 
the observer determines what is important.  I assume the author wants us to 
believe that it is Quality, not the observing subject, which makes this 
determination.

This illustrates how Pirsig misconstrues epistemology to support his Quality 
thesis.  For if the cosmos or 'Quality universe' predetermines what is 
important or valuable, then man has no choice in the matter and is in effect 
a slave of Quality.  You see, Andre, I happen to believe that the human 
individual is the free agent of his reality.  The MoQ would have us deny 
this freedom, thereby also denying the meaning and purpose of human 
existence.

> This leads me to conclude that, after all these years you do not
> comprehend Pirsig's MOQ, still blinded by your subject-object essence.

However you assess my comprehension of Pirsig, I have never advanced a 
"subject-object essence".  (This isn't the first time you've attempted to 
criticize me with words taken out of context, Andre.)

[Ham, to DMB]:
> I agree that Value (Quality) plays a significant noetic role in ontology;
> but it is derived from Essence rather than the cosmos.  And without
> realization by a "sensible" agent, it is meaningless.

[Andre]:
> Here you go, the separation of subject (sensible agent) from object
> ('from Essence'). The MOQ is a program that adheres to radical empiricism.
> It is above all a program about values ordered within an evolutionary
> framework. Dmb has used this observation a few times but I will use it 
> again:
> As Charlene Seigfried, an eminent James scholar, says: 'What is' 
> (metaphysics)
> cannot be designated apart from how we know it (epistemology). Neither can
> it be grasped apart from what we value'. The traditional distinctions 
> between
> ontology, epistemology and ethics breaks down so that knowledge and will,
> facts and values are fused and this is how the MOQ unites facts and 
> values.

If the MOQ is radical empiricism, then Essentialism is 'radical idealism'. 
It holds that "what is" CAN be postulated apart from how we know it, that 
value-sensibility and will need not be fused to empirical facts.

> As you say above, you simply reject Pirsig's MOQ thesis and that
> is why I am still wondering what you are doing here Ham. I mean this
> respectfully. Look carefully at the sentence you wrote above: 'And without 
> realization by a 'sensible agents, it is meaningless'. Think
> about it in the light of what I wrote, specifically the word 
> 'realization'. For something to be 'realized' it must have value, 
> otherwise one will not realize it. No matter how 'sensible' your agent is. 
> This is what Pirsig's MOQ is made up of.

I could list several reasons for my participation in MD, but you would only 
throw them back at me as "self-serving ego gratification" or something 
equally demeaning.  This is because it frustrates you that what you call 
Quality exists only insofar as it is realized by a conscious agent.  Not 
only is your epistemology misconstrued, so is your rejection of the Primary 
Source.  I suspect you know this intuitively, and this only adds to your 
frustration.

Respectfully,
Ham