G'day Ron --
[Ham, previously]: > Mr. Pirsig chose to call reality Quality, which has real meaning as a > subjective assessment of something but cannot be equated with > Essence as the fundamental reality. [Ron]: > May we focus on this aspect for a bit? In this way, how does Essence > differ from Quality? As I interpret it Essence is the absolute "stuff" of > reality before it reaches the senses and becomes broken down and > interpreted into identifiable phenom. > > I believe Pirsig's Quality roughly equates to the same concept. As you describe it above, there would appear to be no difference. > Pirsig interpolates Quality into the workings of objective reality > (static patterns) and introduces the concept of looking at molecules > "preferring" each other instead of the classic view of positive and > negative charge. He also introduces the concept that this phenomena > is a "moral" phenomena due to the perceived choice making > process. In this way he postulates that value may not only be a > perceptual phenomena. This seems to contradict his other assessment > of perceived reality being primarily a culturally derived perception. > The question seems to be is: Is Pirsig's assessment of universal > Quality merely a projected cultural perception by his own > description? I think so. But you'd have to get the author's own answer to that, or address your question to an MoQ authority such as Anthony McWatt. For me, Quality and Value are perceptions, and all perceptions are conscious. That rules out molecular "preferences" based on quality perception. > Ham also has a point about Quality and value being rather broad > umbrella terms with their meanings changing in reference to static > contexts of subjective and objective reference. > > These two aspects, in my opinion, do cause some confusion. > > Ham, I believe, is not interpolating into the objective/static as much > when he contends that subjective value sense is the only thing by which > we can know anything. The fact being that individual minds perceiving > a universal continuity establishes an absolute source of perceptual > reality > while still maintaining individual perception of this shared phenomena. Why are you addressing me in the third person, Ron? Your use of "static" here confuses me, since I don't regard subject/object relations as static, and I don't comprehend the meaning of "interpolating into" them. I've never said that "subjective value is the only thing by which we can know anything." However, I do believe that value sensibility is the core self, and that all experience is derived from it. But your last sentence has me totally baffled. You seem to be asserting that "individual minds...establish an absolute source," if I analyze it correctly. I trust that you mean establishes the CONCEPT of an absolute source. Individual perception doesn't create the source; it creates the experience of phenomena. > Ham sees the ultimate value, the value of the individual with this > source of perceived reality. This relationship is what is important > not so much the positing of a universal concept of how objective/ > static reality works empirically. "Ultimate value" is the relation of the negate (individual self) to the source (Essence). This value is not directly experienced but only sensed, pre-intellectually. The physiological organism breaks value down into differentiated sensations from which the intellect constructs empirical reality (things and events that appear in space/time). > Ham is more of a humanist where Pirsig is more of an empiricist. That's your characterization, Ron. I'm not sure what a humanist is. (I hope it doesn't imply humanitarian!) Webster's Collegiate defines Humanism as "devotion to the humanities: literary culture." I would think that is more idiosyncratic of a novelist and man of letters like Pirsig than a non-academic like myself. As an anthropocentrist, I believe that the human individual is the free agent of the universe. So perhaps "individualist" would be a more appropriate term. Thanks, Ron. And kindly explain what you meant by the statement "...individual minds perceiving a universal continuity establishes an absolute source of perceptual reality." Essentially yours, Ham Moq_Discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
