Hi Marsha --
Value IS the universal principle. All objects (spovs) are concepts.
Intellect is not the agent AND not a disembodied agency. Intellect and
agent are not separate, but interdependent. Conceptually constructed
through interdependent relationship. That is the Middle Way, and
corresponds to the MOQ's interaction of patterns with DQ.
This is the same problem I have with Platt and others here Which values do
you think are universal --"low-quality" values, "high quality" values, or
both? Value is "universal" in the sense that it is the essence of our
reality. But we don't experience it universally, that is, as a homologous
whole. We experience it relationally -- for example, as our love or dread
for particular things and events. You see, if Value could be cognitively
abstracted in its pure form, there would be no differentiation, meaning it
would not be possible to sense a range of values and pattern physical
reality from it. Goodness and badness would be indistinguishable, and
morality would be meaningness.
That's why value is "embodied" in human sensibility. It's our immanent
connection with the "otherness" that represents our source in Essence. To
put it another way, we are the sensible agents of value. We bring value
into being by experiencing it as a multiplistic, relational world. Value is
what makes cognitive awareness possible, and all awareness is proprietary to
the self. The idea that Value exists independently of the self is a
metaphoric construct which continues to confound the MoQists. It is
epistemologically flawed, denies self-determination and free choice, and
makes individual behavior subservient to the laws of nature.
There is no self (literally) and no objective experiences. All is the
interdependency of values.
I think the interdepency of everything counters your
"'ex nihilo' principle" and the need for a primary source.
That makes no sense to me, Marsha. I know you mean well, but you are
defining reality as a valuistic tautology -- values valuing value. How is
one value dependent on another and, without a source, where does this
interdependency start? Despite what Pirsig says, you can't have value
without a sensible subject in relation to something valued. Again, to put
it bluntly, value is an SOM phenomenon. Take away the observing subject and
no value is realized. Conversely, remove the experienced object and there
is nothing to value. The primary source is what creates the dichotomy that
divides awareness from beingness.
At the moment I'm thinking that awareness and compassion
are more essential to a life of quality.
Well, certainly awareness is. Compassion is one of those relative emotions,
like resentment, envy and desire, the nature and practice of which depends
on the social cirumstances. But they're all derived from value-sensibility
... YOUR value-sensibility, not the universe's.
With love,
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/
