Dear Marsha --
> You used the smallcase 'v' in the word value above, which > I think refers to its common usage. Are you ignoring that > the MOQ mostly uses Value and Quality in a special manner? > I do not sense that you accept this. I have noticed this tendency > in past. This can make your statements correct in its usage, > but incorrect in relation to the MOQ. At least that's how I > experience it. You are quite correct in your perception of my "common" usage of Value as a departure from Mr. Pirsig's "special" usage. In that sense I am a renegade in this forum, and if this annoys you I apologize and will desist. Before we abandon this discussion, however, I'd like to hear why you think it is necessary to redefine value in order to support the basic MoQ concept. > You stated that 'value' is manifested. IS? Again, in its most > common usage this may be true. I would think that Quality is > manifested in static patterns of value, and at the point of the > initial intellectual experience. Dynamic Quality is pre-intellectual > and not yet manifested. Somewhere I believe RMP suggested that > Dynamic Quality was in front of the present. At least that's my > understanding. Okay. If you'll permit me to disregard "static patterns" for the moment, I'll rephrase this epistemology in my own terms, and you can decide whether my position is in conflict with Pirsig's. Since it is my understanding that Pirsig equates Value with Quality, I'll use Value in my scenario. I maintain that value sensibility is primary to conscious awareness. In fact, I say it is the very essence of proprietary awareness. Therefore, any experienced manifestation (i.e., appearance) is derived from value-sensibility. The "objective world" is an intellectual construct of value perceived organically by five senses and integrated by the brain. This differentiated image of reality is what we call existence. For something to be manifested means "readily perceived by the senses," so that experiential existence is our manifestation of value. Conversely, what we don't experience is not manifested, is not sensed as Value, and does not exist. Whatever is "in front of the present" can only be conjectured, in my opinion, and to suggest that reality is unmanifested value (DQ) is a hypothesis of dubious validity. I do believe there is an "unmoved mover" or primary source underlying actualized existence, which I call Essence. As a concept, this has "supreme value" to us, but since value is only manifested to the individual subject (and perceived differentially), I submit that it is a mistake to regard Essence as Value. [Marsha]; > Anthropologists, historians and sociologists talking about "mankind" > doesn't mean they can correctly deduce anything about the total > population. And as far as deducing a purpose, that presupposes > cause & effect. Total population has no metaphysical significance. It is the relation of the self to its primary source that is the primary concern of philosophy. > I do not think anything exists inherently, not subjects and not > objects, not me and not you. If you mean that nothing can be self-supportive (sui generis), I totally agree. Which is why I insist that all appearance is the actualization of an absolute, uncreated source. > I've already mentioned the problem with 'purpose' is presupposing > cause & effect. And now you want to establish the sameness of Life > in general. How do you know? Speculate away if you like, but > without proof it's really empty speculation. I do not view cosmic purpose as necessarily linked to "cause and effect". Space/time is the mode of human experience. Cause and effect is an intellectual construct to make sense of a reality experienced as evolving in time. But the purpose of man's existence should not be construed in terms of his finite mode of experience. Yes, this is only a theory--"speculation" if you like--but it is no more speculative than to regard unmanifested value as the primary source. > Do you like to dance? Is that an invitation, Marsha? I didn't know you cared! I learned to waltz in a musical I participated in during my college years, and enjoyed it; but I was never much of a dancer in my youth, and I'm too old to take it up now, thank you. > I may even believe partially as you do, but I do not know anything. The fact that you find only some of what I say believable is a source of great satisfaction to me. One's personal philosophy can never be more than a conviction. In that sense, nobody knows anything for a certainly. But don't underestimate your intuitive reasoning. It has far more power in your life than factual knowledge. Thanks for this opportunity to express my views. I've enjoyed the discussion. Affectionately, 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/
