[Ron]:
Really, I am enjoying the exchange. This stuff just bubbles in my head and it is very cathartic to be able to express them to you. So, I am not stroking your ego as a tactic, I really do appreciate and respect your point of view.
I'm encouraged that you find this topic stimulating. So while you're head is still bubbling (with inspiration, I hope), perhaps you can address my question. As I've said before, the most challenging metaphysical question is the origin of Difference. Once you are able to answer that, Heidegger's question "Why is there something rather than nothing?" should be child's play.
[Ron]:
Pirsig's method of the intellectual construct of referring to these patterns of experience as Dynamic and Static suffice to demonstrate his theory. Plainly, some patterns are denser than others, to use an analogy, it works (to my conceptual understanding) a lot like a thermodynamic system. " No value" does not exist. That is why I say quite literally, we are Quality.
Okay, value is ubiquitous and all-pervading. I agree, but only when it is removed or reduced from Essence, as in the self/other dichotomy. From a logical perspective, positing the self as "value" makes more sense than positing it as as a "negate" or nothingnness', which I have done.
I'm don't know if not Bo Slutvik realized the significance of his statement "Intellect is the value of the DQ/SQ divide", but if you simply substitute Experience for Intellect in the statement, you'll have my definition of experiential awareness. That is to say, if the cognizant individual is value-sensibility, his experience is derived from his sensation of Value which, in turn, is intellectualized into the multiplicity of things (patterns) that represent this value. (In my ontology nothingness is what divides the phenomena experienced, and it is inherent in the negate rather than value or Essence.) That's why I call the individual an agent of value, and his experience of the world a "valuistic construct".
I don't follow your mention of the thermodynamic system as an anology. To what phase or mode of value is this meant to apply? Maybe you can elaborate on that.
This discussion will be more enlightening to me when I receive an epistemological scenario from you similar to the one I've just outlined.
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/
