On Jan 29, 2010, at 12:23:59 AM, "Ham Priday" <[email protected]> wrote: Certainly bacteria and fungi can be "agents" of organo-chemical change. So can household bleach, for that matter. The term I was defining on 1/29 is "subjective agency", which has a very specific connotation; namely, CONSCIOUS ACTION in response to Value. This describes the intellect's power to effect a desired result based on value-sensibility, and it is power unique to human beings..
If we dismiss the subjective agency of man, we deny his sensibility, integrity, and individual freedom, not to mention the meaning of his existence. If (as Pirsig would have us believe), morality and the good behavior are "demands" imposed on us by an extracorporeal "force" called Quality, there is no reason for a subjective agency at all, apart from completing the evolutionary process of Nature. Frankly, I have problems understanding a philosophy that purports to guide human society by "intellectual enlightenment" while at the same time denying the freedom and autonomy of the cognizant agent. Essentially speaking, Ham Hi Ham, I have truncated your post, not to diminish its value (which it has), but with the understanding that both of us know how we got here. As with any discussion, the branches in direction are numerous. Where I differ from you is in the understanding of the subjective agency. If we assume a reality of randomness (the other choice is determinism) I have to assume choice at every level. All the way from choosing one's way home from work to the flipping coin. I am unable to accept that somehow choice appeared in man by some divine intervention. The opposite of this would be a predetermined coin flip to a deterministic setting of events throughout the day which dictate our thoughts. There is nothing in between free will and determinism. If I am able to accept choice in all things, "it" much more makes sense to me. I am with you in terms of the lack of guide at the individual level. However, at the statistical level some outline of predetermination comes in. Quality could possibly reveal the outcome of many individual events. In this way, Quality could be bucketed into levels which have meaning. This is not saying that Quality dictates the outcome of events, because it doesn't, but it does provide guidance at a higher level. By semantic argument, therefore, Quality shapes events and overall outcomes. >From this comes the assumption of consciousness at every level. From the individual to the collective. As Quality proposes, this consciousness tends to reveal itself in forms. I do not agree with the hierarchy as proposed by some, which elevates the intellect to a high level, but I do agree in the collective expression of consciousness, that is from a river or a brain. The subjective nature of this experience is beyond the scope of this post. Cheers, Mark 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/
