Greetings Ham, The individual (self) is process, and that process is valuing. If all processes shuts down, then the individual will cease to exist. The relevance of value to the individual, at least in the most basic sense, is it is dependent on value for its existence.
Marsha At 03:56 PM 4/2/2008, you wrote: >Ron, Krimel, Craig, Bo, Steve, Platt, and all 'old-timers' -- > >I'm introducing a new topic, because I think it's the crux of our problem >with Pirsig's Quality thesis. > >Consider that we've been parsing levels, dominance, patterns, intellect, >evolution, and quality without so much as a mention of the "individual >self". Steve pointed out that "personification of levels .. is muddling the >MOQ." Does it make sense to personify levels while at the same time >dismissing the "person" who defines them? > >We talk about higher levels evolving out of lower levels, only to dominate >the lower levels, as if man were just a passive bystander of a cosmic play. >My question to you all is: What is the point of this endless war of conquest >among levels of Quality if man is not its central focus? A while ago, Bo >chastised me for bringing up the Anthropic Principle because Pirsig didn't >sanction it: > >[Bo on 3/24] > > Pirsig does not say that experience creates the world, rather that > > Quality creates the world, its first creation the static inorganic > > level, its last the intellectual ditto. Nothing about "us > > valuating" or other "human consciousness creating the world". > >And why is that? > >Who else but man does the "valuating" in this world? Of what use is Value >without a subjective agent with a sense of what is good and evil, >significant or trite, and the intelligence to move his reality toward wisdom >and betterness? If man is not the measure of goodness, if the evolution of >nature is an automatic process that goes on without human involvement, what >cosmic purpose is served by man's creation? > >And how can Philosophy possibly address the individual's position in the >universe without acknowledging his existence? Indeed, of what value is >Intellect if it can only deal with factual knowledge derived from a universe >which Science has already explored in extensive detail? > >I feel we have lost our valuistic connection with reality in these >discussions, and I need some assurance that the observer's experience, >defined by RMP as "the cutting edge of reality", really does start with the >"pre-intellectual" sense of Value. So I propose that we open a discussion >as to what relevance Value has to the cognizant individual. (Feel free to >use "Quality" as a synonym if it's more comfortable within the MoQ syntax.) > >Should anyone not understand what prompts my discouragement, I'll be happy >to elaborate. > >Thanks, in advance, for your ideas. > >Regards, >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/ Shoot for the moon. Even if you miss, you'll land among the stars... 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/
