-----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Ham Priday Sent: Thursday, October 04, 2007 12:23 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [MD] Values
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. [Ham] 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. [Ron] It certainly does seem create a lot of confusion here on the forum. [Ham] 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. [Ron] I agree with you on this. Sounds like your ideas fall in with William James "the moral Philosopher and the Moral Life" where his metaphysical question is the contention that to be good, something has to be desired by some sentient being. [Ham] 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. [Ron] I think you and Pirsig are closer than what you think but I do see your point. I understand now why you stress the individual and the uniqueness of experience. [Ham] 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. [Ron] Following that, the only meaning is what the individual assigns to it given the unique perspective of the experience of the essent. Either I'm understanding Essentialism more or you are presenting it clearer with every post. Thanks, Ham. Essentially yours, Ron 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/ 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/
