From: hampday@earthlink.net
Date: Thu Aug 12 2004 - 20:35:09 BST
From Ham Priday, Thursday, Aug. 12, 2004
Re: MD Proposal to discuss a Metaphysics of Value
> On 7 Aug 2004 at 3:07, Adam Watt wrote:
> Firstly, you mentioned you contacted Pirsig asking for additional
> clarification - may I ask what exactly you asked, and what the
> response was you received? I'm intrigued to know. Continuing in the
> same vein, one comment of Pirsigs you did mention was his observation
> of the 'remarkable similarity' between your own thesis and the MOQ.
> It would be interesting, provided you agree with the former statement
> (I'm presuming you do..), to hear what you think these similarities
> are? Or perhaps in the interest of brevity, what you consider the
> differences to be?
>
> msh adds:
> I too would be very interested in your contact with Pirsig. Please
> provide some documentation. I'd also like to know whether or not you
> believe Pirsig sees value in the conclusions you've drawn from your
> philosophy, as they are recorded on your web site, specifically
> regarding your supernatural references to the "Creator" and the
> "Master Plan", as well as your obvious inclination to place the
> highest value upon so-called Western Civilization. (Every time I
> hear the phrase "Western Civilization" I'm reminded of Ghandi who,
> when asked what he thought of Western Civilization said, "I think it
> might be a good idea.")
Mark: A brief explanation, and a delayed apology to you all ...
When I asked to join MD Discuss, I didn't realize that my request letter to
"horse" would be automatically forwarded to everyone on the list. I had
thought it appropriate to mention that I'd written to the Professor in an
attempt to establish communication, and that he'd suggested that I might
find the MD contributors' comments interesting. It's understandable that
any correspondence with Pirsig would arouse the group's curiosity. But
while I had assured him that I would not publish personal correspondence "on
my site", it was unclear what the precedent was for "his" site. I did send
Adam a "personal" copy of Pirsig's reply (to satisfy his query), also
sending off a quick note to "horse" requesting clarification of the
confidentiality issue. His response came today. (Sorry this took so long,
and hope you can appreciate my predicament.)
>Hi Ham
>
>Mr Pirsig has OK-ed the use of personal correspondence between him and
yourself for
>use on the MD discussion list.
>Sorry for the delay.
>
>Many thanks
>Horse
Now that the matter has been settled, here's the full text of my letter to
Pirsig and the reply as he typed it . (Considering its brevity, I doubt
that you'll find anything "new" from it with respect to
MOQ or especially "revealing" of his take on my Philosophy of Essence.)
Robert M. Pirsig
c/o Author mail, 7th Floor
HarperCollins Publishers
10 East 53rd Street
New York, NY 10022
June 23, 2004
Dear Professor Pirsig:
I have a metaphysical thesis on the Internet that I think might interest
you. Two years ago, while researching Value for my website, I discovered
your remarkable work in this area. This led me to read Lila and to
re-evaluate ZMM which I had unfortunately bypassed in the '70s.
Since your Quality concept is unique in supporting my Essence Value
ontology, I have taken the liberty of quoting portions of the "Einstein
Meets Magritte" paper that you presented in 1995, which lucidly explains the
empirical predicament. Although my thesis was developed independently of
the MOQ, and is somewhat more theoretical in approach, it occurred to me
that you might see my treatment as a way of further pursuing the Quality
[Value] concept along metaphysical lines.
Inasmuch as I have no formal training in philosophy other than a college
course, this project would certainly benefit from your professional
guidance. The MOQ site indicated that you were retired and living in
relative seclusion somewhere in New England, and that you could only be
reached through your New York publisher.
Should my thesis be of interest, and if you have a PC available, it would
save us both time if you could review the material on line and e-mail me
your thoughts. My URL is www.essentialism.net. Naturally I would be most
grateful for your suggestions and criticisms, as well as learning of any new
work in progress that might shed more light on the MOQ. I have no
association with public or private organizations, nor need you be concerned
that I would publish personal correspondence on the site without your
permission.
Thank you for taking the time to read this letter, Professor Pirsig. I look
forward to the possibility of establishing intellectual communication with
the leading philosopher of our generation.
Yours very sincerely,
Hamilton Priday
July 18, 2004
Dear Hamilton Priday,
I looked at your thesis on the internet and saw that it is
thoughtful, sane, and remarkably similar to the Metaphysics of Quality. My
problem with "essence", is not that it isn't there or that it is not the
same as Quality. It is that positivists usually deny "essence" as something
like "God" or "the absolute" and dismiss it experimentally unverifiable,
which is to say they think you are some kind of religious nut. The advantage
of Quality is that it cannot be dismissed as unverifiable without falling
into absurdity. The positivist cannot say, for example, that his experiments
have no value, or that he does not think that anything is better, or worse,
that is, of more or less value, than anything else.
I'm getting quite old now and more interested in sailing than
philosophy these days, but I think you might get some interesting comments
from the contributors to www.moq.org in the Discuss section of that web
site.
Best regards,
RMPirsig [signature]
> Clearly, your own values must be drawn from your philosophy or your
> philosophy must have been drawn to support your values. In either
> case, your conclusions do not resonate with my own sense of moral and
> intellectual reality and, therefore, your philosophy, to me, is
> suspect. Any information you can provide regarding Pirsig's high
> opinion of your philosophy would go a long way toward making me
> rethink my position.
I did not say, nor have I ever presumed, that Pirsig has a "high opinion" of
my philosophy.
I'll admit to having some familiarity with only his two biograpical novels
and a paper related to quantum physics. However, unless I'm very mistaken,
there is a commonality here that is worthy of discussion by the learned MOQ
specialists of your discussion forum. If I should offend anyone in this
group by arguing for my perspective, let me know and I'll become a silent
member.
Essentially yours,
Ham
> MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
> Mail Archives:
> Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
> Nov '02 Onward -
http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
> MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
>
> To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
> http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
>
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Aug 12 2004 - 20:38:18 BST