[MF] reality: interactions or quality?

[Michael Hamilton]

On 2/22/06, Kevin Perez <juan825diego at yahoo.com> wrote:
> Mike,
>
> You asked, "Why not consider [...] consider love as the extreme positive
> face of value, which is a spectrum?"
>
> As this thread and one or two others have developed -- thanks to
> everyone who has participated -- it has occurred to me that that meaning
> may be what Pirsig had in mind when he wrote "Quality is the source of
> all things."  That is, value is meaning.  That which means something to
> us is of value to us.

Yes, Scott has persuaded me that meaning and value are synonyms. Using
'meaning' has the advantage of connoting an enormous range of
'values', whereas 'value' on its own can appear limited to linking and
disliking, which I believe should be seen as rudimentary meaning from
which more sophisticated meanings can grow.

> So I might translate Pirsig's Quality to meaning.  But I think I'd follow
> James Fowler's lead and say that faith is the process by which we make
> meaning.  And I think I'd place love over both.  Without love there can be
> no meaning and no faith.  And I would add that all three -- love, faith and
> meaning -- require effort.

I would argue that rudimentary meaning/value - liking, disliking,
desire, suffering - does not require faith, except maybe a basic faith
that reality is not an illusion and that life is worth living and
paying attention to. But perhaps these should not be classified as
'faith', because it seems unlikely that babies or animals would ever
doubt these things in the first place. So I'm not convinced that there
can be no value/meaning without love/faith. However, I agree that love
and faith and the development of meaning/value beyond rudimentary
liking and disliking, all requre effort - an active participation in
and attention to life.

Regards,
Mike