[MD] 42

[Hamilton Priday]

Greetings, John --

Lately I've made it a habit to refrain from responding to MOQ messages, 
except for the rare occasion when the sender 'hits paydirt'.   Your note to 
Andre of 1/20 rises to that level.

> Andre,
>
> I have two things in mind: a very general question of why are we here on
> earth?  What is our purpose here?
>
> The second thing that mingles with this is Pirsig's variant on the
> Buddhist poem on page 406 of LILA:
> "While sustaining biological and social patterns
> Kill all intellectual patterns...and then follow Dynamic Quality and
> morality will be served"
>
> It appears to me that these lines refer to a non-dual perspective...the
> fusing of what Paul, in his paper terms an epistemological and an
> ontological context. ...
>
> J:  I'm not exactly sure what a "non-dual perspective" would see, but 
> about
> the Giant I agree and have a question for you, and in fact, for anybody 
> who
> can answer.  Isn't it a de facto necessity that the Giant MUST operate
> according to a SOM system?  It seems that a values perspective would of
> necessity be operating on a shifting scale of shades of gray and what the
> system requires is a binary decision process of simple black and white in
> order to function.

I think this is exactly right.  We do live in a relational world where 
values are experienced on "a shifting scale of shades of gray."  And if 
"black and white" are your standards of measurement, then your decision 
(value choice) will depend on where the matter in question appears on that 
scale.

> It just seems the checks and balances of competing selves that make up the
> body of the Giant, requires the metaphysical underpinning of a certain
> absoluteness of subject and object.  I ask because lately it occurs to me
> that the urge to "change the system" is inherently a lost cause.  I'd like
> to know for sure if that is so or not.

"Giant" is Pirsig's metaphor for the System, and a system is always the 
order we make of disparate components -- the infrastructure of relational 
existence.  We can rearrange the components or alter their characteristics, 
but this is akin to shifting deck chairs on the Titanic.   The "absolute" 
you are looking for is the unity of subject and object.

I have just read a remarkable paperback by Gerald Schroeder, an MIT-trained 
nuclear scientist who has worked in both physics and biology.  It's titled 
'The Hidden Face of God:  Science reveals the Ultimate Truth,' and it may 
offer the approach you need.  Schroeder's thesis is that the laws of nature 
operate according to a creative intelligence that transcends scientific 
theory.  As Schroeder explains, we now know not only that behind matter lies 
energy, but also that behind energy lies the essential "wisdom" of creation. 
(You'll find my review along with a sample of Schroeder's argument on this 
week's Value Page at www.essentialism.net/valuepage.htm.)

Scientists no longer question the intelligent design of the universe.  Some 
have called this wisdom the power of "information".  I use the term 
"Essence" and liken it to the Absolute Sensibility on which existence is 
based.  As negates of Essence, human beings are endowed with the 
value-sensibility that makes us autonomous creatures
subject to the laws of nature, yet capable of being the 'choicemakers' of 
our world.  I believe Pirsig has overlooked that fact that, despite our 
inability to experience this ultimate Essence, it is individuals who create 
the Giant, and it is our "static patterns of value" that drive the System.

Has this reply suggested a solution to your quandary, John?  If so, I would 
be happy to
put it all together for you.

Thanks for breaking the monotony of puerile chatter with a truly meaningful 
question.

Essentially yours,
Ham