Ron, Krimel, Marsha --
Replying to my question concerning the relevance of Value to the individual, Ron said: > Pirsig tends to stray from anthropic principle, if you ask me, > which is the whole point of his metaphysic, busting that notion > of otherness as an absolute entity in itself. He supports the > idea that objective reality is a subjective interpretation. Neither otherness nor the subject can be an "absolute entity in itself", which is why I argue for an absolute source. Pirsig has posited Quality in place of a primary source, and has made it a "moral absolute" rather than a metaphysical absolute. By supporting the idea that "objective reality is a subjective interpretation," he has allowed for subject and object, which refutes his claim to have overcome duality. (Not that there's anything wrong with that; we can't escape S/O in existence.) > Value then is centered on avoiding prejudicial assumptions > and focusing on actual first hand experiences. Intellectual > experience is but one of many modes of conscious awareness. > Sense of Value is an individual endeavor within an intellectual, > social, biological and inorganic context. I don't understand what you mean by "avoiding prejudicial assumptions", since our intellectual interpretation of experience is prejudiced (biased) by the very nature of our subjectivity. > But it does not mean that existence is ultimately meaningless, > it means that "meaning" is self derived, that it is important to > recognize this and not go looking for meaning outside of ourselves. > The most certain of experiences - pre-intellectual ones are the > ones in which meaning holds the most value. In my view, belief that the only meaning is that which is invented by man is a nihilistic notion. It assumes that this process which encompasses everything in the universe, including man, is a cosmic accident. This is an outright rejection of the Anthropic Principle which (if I read your first statement correctly) is "the whole point" of Pirsig's metaphysics. > To get caught up in the objectivism of the levels applying > to an objective reality is kinda missing the point. > Evolution is now. The rest is just interpretation. I agree completely, and so, apparently, does Krimel who asks: > So why is everyone so focused on levels? Marsha volunteers another perspective, which is a more direct answer to my question because it includes the individual: > The individual (self) is process, and that process is valuing. > If all process shuts down, then the individual will cease to > exist. The relevance of value to the individual, at least in the > most basic sense, is it is dependent on value for its existence. I like that first sentence, Marsha. It should be set somewhere in large caps with RMP's signature affixed. As for the rest, it's true that if process ceases, there is no individual. But it's also true that if there is no individual there is no existence. For existence (the object of experience) and the individual (the subject of experience) are mutually exclusive contingencies. Together they actualize value sensibility to create physical reality. Isn't this really what Pirsig should have said? Does all this analysis of levels by the numbers add anything of philosophical value to this ontology? Thanks for the input, folks. I'll await further comment before trying to form my conclusions. 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/
