Hi Ron -- [Ham, previously]: > Quality implies what is universally good, whereas value reflects what > one enjoys, desires or aspires to. I maintain that it is a mistake to > equate these human sensibilities.
[Ron]: > This is interesting, I see no implied universals except generalized > concepts that all generally agree upon. Once specifics are developed > differential viewpoints develop. What you are saying is that Quality is > general whereas value is specific. > They both mean the same thing but refer to differing aspects given the > context of implication. The mistake is to apply a generalized concept to a > specific context, not switching the terms themselves. > Value and Quality are interchangeable; it's the context in which they are > used that makes the difference. > I agree it is a mistake to apply generalizations to specifics, Pirsig's > whole aim is about just this mistake, a logic trap indeed. It's the generalization of specifics that conflate's Pirsig's philosophy. His preferred term "Quality" is used to encompass both as an All. My contention is that this is an epistemological oversight. Value, as I use this term, is specific to the individual. It is proprietary sensibility -- Pirsig's "pre-intellectual experience". But it is not experience until it is differentiated by the sensory receptors and brain of the individual subject. The integration of this sensory data "objectivizes" being and makes the appearance of reality different for each subject. All existence is differentiated experience of what is ultimately One. The "implied universals" result from the fact that we all perceive the same "object" -- the essent or otherness. That gives us collective correspondence with physical reality. The difference in perception is valuistic -- no two value-sensibilities are identical. To sweep the proprietary nature of sensibility under the rug for the sake of monism is a distortion of conscious awareness which is unique to each individual. Only an epistemology that acknowledges the "agency" of existence can provide a rationale for the meaning of life. IMO this is sorely lacking in the MoQ. Thanks, Ron. Essentially yours, 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/
