Hi Ham, On Thu, Dec 9, 2010 at 9:59 PM, Ham Priday <[email protected]> wrote: > Good evening, Mark -- > [Mark before] Without Quality, things would be meaningless. > > [Ham] Would you have chosen that word had you not familiarized yourself with the > MoQ?
[Mark] Hard to say, I read ZMM back in 1974. I was reading a lot of books on Eastern philosophy, and other stuff at the time. Another book which I read just previously was called The Crack in the Cosmic Egg, by J.C. Pierce. This was interesting as well. I was mainly caught up in Taoism as I recall. When ZMM came out, it captured the imagination of a lot of us, and we discussed it quite a bit. I know I was looking for something. Probably something else would have worked just as well. MOQ and Lila came out quite a bit later. I was a bit disappointed with the direction Pirsig chose, but I have done my best to fit it in. Some of the old magic is still in Lila. I have to accept it as an attempt at a description of what he saw in the '60s, and Pirsig had a lot of fans who needed to be satisfied. I don't envy him, I don't think I would have written another book, but who knows what destiny calls. > [Ham] > There is nothing "static" about the quality (value) we experience as > essents. As I mentioned before, it is the dynamic nature of human > sensibility that enables us to objectify Value. 'Essent-value' is > experiential; that is, it's the incrementally perceived value of essents > evolving and developing over time. What is "ingrained" in us is > value-sensibility (what Pirsig calls "pre-intellectual experience"). Except > that each and every experience is perceived to have its own value relative > to everything else. Rather than "matter interacting with matter," it's > Essential Value differentiated by experience to create finite relational > 'beingness' (essents). [Mark] I think I understand this, this is why my previous analogy described it as a flow from essence to essence. That flow just happens to go through us. I have a hard time with the biological model of being engrained, even though I am a biologist. There is no way we are separate from the biology, so what is ingrained is what we are, nothing more nothing less, the sum total, the whole enchilada. We cannot experience the human condition without our bodies. The "We" that I use is the experiencer. The vehicle is the body. Yea, I know, we can't measure the experiencer, at least not yet, so we need some metaphysics. But I do understand what you are saying. When as the experiencer we come in contact with an apple, the value flows through us which allows the differentiation and recognition of the apple. Of course this happens with every fiber of our body and so it is quite complex and busy, so this is an extreme simplification. > [Snap] [Ham] > The individual self is nothing but sensibility in want of Value. Proprietary > selfness is a negation of Essence. That's why the term 'negate' is > appropriate. Selfness is divided from Essence by nothingness, just as > Sensibility is divided from Beingness by nothingness. The nothingness that > separates all existents is the common denominator of the differentiated > world. I don't know how to formulate this as an equation, except to say > that Nothingness represents the primary negation whereby Sensibility is > "excluded" from Essence to actualize existence. [Mark] Is there another word for Nothingness? Because where this takes me logically is that nothing is separating. Can't we just be something separated from something else? Right now I am imagining a veil or something. Perhaps this is because I am caught up in the Qabalah, and they use veils. I am also still caught up in my previous analogy of us being a pipe which channels Value. This channeling creates other and returns its essence to the absolute. Like a wind tunnel or something. As it blows we feel alive. We are kind of a vacuum waiting to be continually filled. This correlates with my scientific understanding of the flow of electrons from high potential to low potential ending up on oxygen to form water. > [Ham, after some snipping] > Yes, as much as we try, it is not possible for man to comprehend reality > holistically. > But that's to man's benefit, because to do so would prevent him from > realizing value from the relational perspective. By the same token, if man > had access to absolute Truth, he would be denied the capacity to exercise > the free choice necessary to become a moral creature. (This is the > principle that Pirsig's "universal morality" misses.) [Mark] I do not like the notion of Absolute Truth as something that really exists, unless everything is absolute Truth, and that would make it meaningless since there would not be any falseness. I am not much one who thinks of a loving God. It just doesn't make sense to me. I envision Pirsig's universal morality more as a driving force than actually existing as a tendency. One does not have to choose morality if one doesn't want to, but there are all sorts of biological issues that arise, such as regret or shame. Still, nothing that a good drink won't fix. There is lots of trial and error in morality. > > > Don't become discouraged, Mark. I have noted much progress in your > understanding of Essence qua Quality. In fact, I've seen indications that > you have begun to realize that Quality (Value) by itself cannot be the > Absolute Source. Is my optimism unfounded, or is Essentialism actually > beginning to make some sense? [Mark] Well, I don't know if I have changed my attitude about Quality. Perhaps I have, and that would mean growth. So, at this point I still see Quality as that which separates, but I am willing to say that it is not everything, because as you say, something has to realize that separation. I also do not see Quality as some kind of God who is presenting us with two options and having us choose (right door, straight to Heaven, left door, well that is just your bad luck, chum) How does the relativity of Value fit into your ontology? That is, is there any significance to our ability to know what is better? Is that betterness part of our make up, or does it come from outside and is presented to us? Why do we differentiate differently? Hope my question is clear, 'cause it doesn't seem to make much sense to me the way I have written it. Anyway, if not, I'll think of another way to ask the question. > [Ham] > Anyway, thanks for hanging in there with me. > Hey, no problem, this is fun. 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/md/archives.html > 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/md/archives.html
