[MD] Descriptions of Quality

[Ham Priday]

Evening, Mark --


> Hi Ham,
>
> On Mon, Jul 9, 2012 at 1:55 PM, Ham Priday <hampday1 at verizon.net> wrote:
>
> Ham:
>> I would add that "Quality" as redefined by RMP corrupts the
>> common aesthetic attribution of the word by inferring that a
>> proprietary human appraisal has an independent existence.
>
> Pirsig's introduction of Quality is meant to get one thinking along a
> different line of awareness.  It is not meant to spoon-feed any one
> on "Truths".  That you find it ambiguous is a good thing, at least
> that will get you wondering what he means.  From ambiguity comes
> self-realization.  Any philosophy that pretends to be the way things
> are is not my cup of tea.  You ask us to accept a lot in Essentialism,
> yet you accept nothing of MoQ.  Is this not a bit one sided in terms
> of a discussion?

You disappoint me with an apologist defense that I would have expected of 
Ant, Arlo, or DMB.  The MoQ was advanced as a philosophy, Mark; and a 
philosophy that evades "Truths" with ambiguous references instead of 
explaining "how things are" is unlikely to outlive the critics.

It isn't true that I accept nothing of MoQ.  I accept the concept of Value 
(Quality) as fundamental to man's reality.  But Value is not self-sufficient 
or independent of man, and does not account for our existence.  If being 
"one-sided" means that I am biased toward individual valuism, I plead no 
contest.  It's what makes the philosophy of Essence unique and meaningful.

>> I happen to prefer the word "Value", which Pirsig equates
>> with Quality, chiefly because it is also a verb.  This allows us
>> to express a statement such as, "Chocolate is good for John
>> because he values it."  But neither Value nor Quality
>> connotes Reality,  Nor can a subjective assessment serve
>> as the progenitor or Creator of the universe.
>
> I could say that value, as you use it, is an expression of Quality.
> It is not the creation of a human, but is instead an interpretation
> by a human.  I am sure I am sounding like a broken record here.
> But maybe it will sink in.  It may be useful to step back for a
> moment and view humans as participants, not as an anointed
> species.  If you don't think that a monkey knows a good banana
> from a bad banana, then you are in complete denial.  Yes, our
> system of valuation may be more complex, but it is still the same
> thing.  Since you are expecting this from me, I will continue
> to say that our valuation is no different from a river choosing
> a path down to the ocean.  It is all basically the same thing.
> We are not somehow more special.  Everything is special.
> Peace and love and all that jazz...  Raise the world to the
> level which you hold yourself before it is too late (doomsday
> music in the background).  Repent I say!  Praise Quality!
> That last statement is supposed to be followed with a quiet "val-
> yew" (as in amen).  Just put that in to satisfy those who think
> I am so righteous.
>
> Once we separate ourselves from all else, we are lost.  The
> rapid destructiveness of man is unprecedented in the history of
> species.  This is because man thinks he is different and somehow
> the king of nature.  He creates a false distinction between man
> made and natural.  He tries so hard not to blend with this world,
> (something which Taoism teaches us to do).  Man is so
> incredibly afraid of death, that anything goes.  He becomes
> isolated in his little ego.  It is all natural, every last bit of it,
> man and his creations included.  It is all part of a tendency
> (The Way).  If one wants to be a positivist, then one can say
> that it is all towards "betterness".  Of course one can also be
> a negative person and think otherwise; think, that is,  that
> everything else is simply an accident just marching along.  We
> each have that choice to make since we have free will.  Ham
> are you and the rest of us cast adrift in this existential world,
> or are we together with everything else?  Are we alone
> exceptional, or is everything exceptional?

If everything were exceptional, relative value would be meaningless.  And 
relative value is all that we can experience.  Man is exceptional by any 
measure you can come up with -- rationally, historically, cognitively, 
morally, cuoturally, esthetically, innovationally, productively, 
emotionally, and spiritually.  This gives him the freedom and autonomy to 
rule the world, ponder its mysteries, and choose the future course of 
civilization.

> So tell me, Ham, are you in or are you out?  Are you with this
> world or are you separate from it?  Can everything project value,
> or only you?  Are you part of it, or are you in charge of it?
> Do you make the rules, or do the rules make you?  Essence is
> amused by your arrogance. It is all the same to Essence.
> Essence does not play favorites.

Like you, I am very much a participant of this world.  I do not consider 
empirical existence the only realty, however.  The "rules" of nature are not 
mine but are embued in the Master Design which we sense valuistically. 
Value, sensibility, being, and the design are all derived from the uncreated 
Source.  Real arrogance is to dismiss this truth and pretend that we are 
here by some accident of nature and must yield to the vicissitudes of fate 
or, what is even worse, an indefinable force that moves us indefinably 
toward an indefinable betterness.

> I like the word Essence.  Quality is Essence.  It just has
> a higher descriptive quality than simply saying Essence.
> But, what's in a word anyway.  Why don't you just call it
> Quality if it is all the same to you?  It would still be your
> Essence.  Trust me.

What's in a word, indeed?  A primary source is an essential premise for 
ultimate reality.  Essentiality defines the non-descriptive nature of 
reality.  Plus, it identifies that which precedes all created entities. 
Quality does not meet any of these criteria.  So why not call it Essence? 
You can't get any more fundamental than that.  Trust me.

'Til next time,
Ham