Hi John --
I am also enjoying this dialogue. I would just like to put
one query to you:
On Thu, Jun 10, 2010 at 1:08 PM, Ham Priday wrote:
Excellent! Pirsig's Quality is like the God of religion,
since neither is regarded as intrinsic to the subjective
Knower.
My query is, "what do you think 'intrinsic' means?"
My dictionary goes like this:
belonging naturally; essential : access to the arts is intrinsic
to a high quality of life. See note at inherent .• (of a muscle)
contained wholly within the organ on which it acts.
See, by that definition I disagree with your denigration of
both Quality and the god of religion. Tho I throw a bow
in the direction of your "essential"
John, I debated with myself whether to use "intrinsic" or "inherent", not
wanting to force "essential" on the Pirsigians. (I also considered
"immanent".) But, by your definition, intrinsic fits. This statement is
not meant to denigrate quality or the God concept. My point is that, unlike
"Essence", which could also be regarded as the "nature" of both subjects and
objects, "Quality" (as used by Pirsig) is an evolving cosmic force, just as
God is a divine being for the theist. Both entities are conceived as
independent, that is, separate and distinct from the subjective self.
For Quality, it is simply true that the same pull toward complexity
that runs counter to the randomizing, entropy of the cosmos, that
created everything is also the force I sense in myself that recognizes
this pattern-making harmonizer. Thus the man within is
microcosmic of the reality without, bound by this undefinable
that we spend our lives defining that Pirsig terms "Quality" and
I think he does a very good job of it.
I've said many times before that "quality", as commonly understood, does not
exist without an observer to "measure" it. The same could be said for
"value". In an attempt to overcome duality and promote a monistic source,
Pirsig posited Quality as an aesthetic phenomenon that not only defies
epistemological understanding but that he refuses to define. Moreover, by
describing his unique quality as evolutionary, he has precluded the
possibility of a metaphysical (i.e., transcendent) source. As a result, the
Quality of the MOQ does not represent man's sensibility, cannot replace God,
and functions solely to create existential patterns.
For Religion, I say much the same. As scripture testifies of God
as the one "In whom we move and breathe and have our being".
Which sounds about as intrinsic as you can get.
I would say more pantheistic than intrinsic. Since you seem to be defending
deism, John, can you accept "Quality" as a connotation for God or a Supreme
Being? Most of the Christians I know would reject that idea, particularly
if they knew that the author considered the MOQ to be an atheistic
philosophy.
But thanks for your thoughts, John.
Best regards,
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/md/archives.html
