At 01:36 PM 9/17/2007, Ham wrote: >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.
>[Ham] >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. Hmmm. That the "objective world" is an intellectual construct is true, but it is an intellectual construct that needs to change. A new world-view based on relationship and change is in order. At least that's what I think. The subject/object world-view is a static pattern of value, a habit. World-views change. I am more and more conscious of change and relationship, and less and less conscious of otherness. I discovered this from painting as much as from what I've read or heard. It expanded to other experiences. I think I agree with the rest of this paragraph. >[Ham] >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. Yes, it is a hypothesis, but dubious is your opinion. To me an "unmoved mover" or primary source is an unnecessary conjecture. I am content with an indivisible, undefinable and unknowable Quality (DQ), or Nothingness, or Emptiness. I don't understand the ""supreme value" to us". Again, my conception and experience of myself as an individual subject is changing. You haven't given any reason that you think it is a mistake not to accept Essence (unmoved mover or supreme value) as Value. I don't experience any need to accept it. >[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 don't agree with this. > > 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. Appearance is sq and DQ, interconnected, ever changing static patterns of value and Dynamic Quality. If you want to say DQ is an absolute, uncreated source, I don't think I will disagree. > > 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. I can't get my mind around a purposeless purpose. Isn't a purpose an intention for an effect? If it is your hypothesis, that's fine. > > 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. You're never too old to dance. It's a very natural thing to do, very dynamic if you allow it. > > 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. Well, to act in this world one adopts values. Yours sound very admirable. >Thanks for this opportunity to express my views. I've enjoyed the >discussion. > >Affectionately, >Ham As much as I am here because of the MOQ, I am equally here because of Lila (the woman). I think her soliloquy was astonishingly true. Whatever you think it is, that's what it is. This has been good for me. Thank you. Marsha 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/
