Hi Ham, For some (MoQ?), reality is: being in the presence of a greater power. This is not unfounded since gravity seems to be pretty widespread (at least so I'm told). If such a force is used as a basis, then one seeks to describe such a force, Ie. Quality. Once such a thing is described, everything else is fit in. Pirsig would be the first to say, that it cannot be described, only experienced. However such belief still requires some outside force. I haven't felt that Pirsig denies the subjective agent, but only that this subjective agent is part of a much larger plan (without intelligence). If indeed, the denial of essence is used as the fundamental building block, one still has to ascribe to a larger plan, since we all seem to negate essence in the same way.
The tail wagging the dog is accurate, if one supposes that individual sensibility is part of a much larger thing. That is, our ultimate expression is under the rule of certain laws. Quality attempts to explain what those rules are from the standpoint of morality. So indeed, we are being wagged, but this does not deny personal responsibility. Cheers, Mark Hi Mark -- On 1/26 at 8:38PM, you said to Krimel: > I may be wrong, but I believe Pirsig would answer the question > of "why survive?" by saying "because those are the demands of > Quality". I'm afraid that's how he would have to answer it. And such an answer reduces human sensibility to a tail wagged by Quality. The absurdity of this convoluted ontology seems to have escaped Krimel. If Quality (Value) "evolves to goodness" for its own sake, morality is fixed by Nature and man is only an anomalous "pattern" in the evolutionary process. This makes the individual life an automaton of the Source and denies meaning or purpose for the life experience. For the life of me, I fail to see how a philosophy that rejects the subjective agent can offer spiritual or moral guidance to mankind. The best moral axiom that can be drawn from the MoQ is "some things are better than others". Since, in the last analysis, Quality's progression to Goodness is automatic, the implied "directive" of a self-serving universe would seem to be simply: "Go with the flow." Why do Pirsigians continue to parse the "levels" of Quality for a more meaningful answer when no other analysis is possible? --Ham _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ [Krimel] I don't think that "satisfaction" is a criterion for truth. It is a happy coincidence when knowledge makes us happy but I fear that often it is just a sign that we are on the wrong path. I think it is true that I will die one day but I don't find that terribly satisfying. If all you want is beliefs that make you happy why not drop the pretext and take up painting? Science may not be the only path to truth or knowledge but I do think that other paths are in many ways subservient to science. One can't seriously advance a philosophy that claims that the earth is only 10,000 years old. Although that is the position advanced by the ICR and taught to students at private Christian schools. I for one think inflicting these ideas on children is a form of child abuse. 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/ 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/
