Greetings Ham, If you are saying that "value sensibility" is equivalent to 'experience' which RMP has said is a synonym for Quality(Dynamic and static), then I should think I can agree with you.
Marsha -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Ham Priday Sent: Wednesday, August 19, 2009 2:58 AM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [MD] Consciousness (explained?) Greetings, Steve (and Platt) -- On 8/18 you said to Platt: > I sympathize with this view [that sensibility is the ground > of being and creator of the world]. If consciousness is "value > sensibility" we can also think of > consciousness as what it is like to BE value. And if everything is > Quality, then consciousness goes all > the way down, then we don't need to ask when consciousness > emerged. But I hate to say such things because it sounds > a lot like new-agey nonsense. Oh well. It is not nonsense at all, Steve. We ARE "conscious of what it is like to BE value." It's called "experience", and it represents our value-sensibility as beingness -- as finite 'existents' in the experienced world of time and space. If you substitute "Value" for "Quality" in the next sentence, you'll see that it expresses the concept that phenomena (i.e., everything in existence) is an experiential projection of Value. In a word, human beings are value sensible creatures. One other minor adjustment is necessary to make that sentence conform to my epistemology. Conscious awareness is a finite reduction or derivative of what I call Sensibility. So, it isn't Consciousness that "goes all the way down" (because only a creature can be conscious), but the Absolute Sensibility of the primary source. The same is true with Value, which we do not experience in its "pure" form but only as representative objects and events. Yet, as value sensible agents, we are all aware of Value by our emotional and intellectual response to it. This is why Platt prefers the term "aesthetic sensibility", because he is a connoisseur of art and music. However, human sensibility encompasses not just aesthetic appreciation but qualitative, quantitative, and moralistic judgments about everthing we experience. It is the "experience generator", and in that sense value-sensibility is, as Platt says, "the ground of being and creator of the world." So, although Platt claims to exclude "Ham's metaphysics", his valuistic view of consciousness actually supports it. I suspect that, with a little introspection and a less rigid interpretation of Mr. Pirsig's philosophy, other MoQists here might come to the same conclusion. (But perhaps that's asking too much.) Thank you, gentlemen. It's gratifying to know that my influence may have made a small dent in the official dogma. Best 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/ 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/
