Ham, let me know if I have totally mistaken your Value. I have just thought that, perhaps, some major misunderstanding came in via sensibility. I think this is a bit of a long shot though:
"Sensibility – Pre-intellectual value-awareness which is the primary, undifferentiated attribute of the negate from which the individuated Self emerges. In Essence, the absolute integration of esthesis (sensation) and quiddity (being)." it seem I might apply this definition equally well to my understanding of your work, which I have been working with, or the sensibility that is necessary to experience RMP's value in DQ. So, maybe, just maybe, I have impugned you unfairly in this exchange on 'value'. But I still don't see how your sensible I could be empowered to *do*. Tim On Sun, 12 Dec 2010 18:02:29 -0800, [email protected] said: > Ham, Horse, > > Horse, thank you for pointing out this handling of RMP's value! I will > deal with it shortly. I have maintained that Ham has a significantly > different concept of Value. Which is cool; but it has to be recognized > and admitted that his 'value' and Pirsig's value are far from the same. > Ham, you can't just say that RMP meant what you now think when he wrote > the letters 'Value' back then, just because you also attach the letters > 'Value' to what you now think. Come on! > > From your thesis, Ham, the definitions at the end: > > " Value – The relational affinity for the wholeness of Essence > which binds subject to object. Realized by its arousal of desire or > passion, and ultimately reclaimed by Essence, Value is the metaphysical > ground of existential reality and the teleological motivator of human > experience. > > Value-sense – The human cognitive capacity to realize essent-value > through the intellection (negation) of objective beingness; the cause > of the psycho-emotional affect referred to in this ontology as "value > affirmation"." > > Concretely, within the body of the thesis, in fact, your dealing with > the rose: > > "The bottom line is that we can know only what we can experience. Even > facts and descriptions that come to us second-hand—from textbooks and > lectures, for example—originate as sensory values in someone's > experience and are filed away in our memory bank as if they were > directly experienced. In truth, nothing can be said to exist that is > not capable of being experienced. This implies that not only our image > of the world but the nature of reality itself may be experiential, in > which case the brain functions as an effectual mechanism to create the > experience, rather than simply reacting (affectively) to pre-existing > external stimuli. Despite existentialist views to the contrary, a > critical understanding of experience leads to the conclusion that the > essence of reality is implicit in its values rather than its physical > "beingness", and that value sensibility must therefore precede material > existence." > > so, our senses sense *your* 'value'. Pirsig's value comes in more along > the lines of 'general moral judgment'. Your value-sense may eventually > lead to certain emotions or feelings in the subject, but RMP's value is > pointing directly at that feeling - and what's more, it is pointing to > such value it exists culturally, socially, which is why this arises from > a conversation about anthropology! > > For RMP's meaning of 'Value', I'll take it back to Chapter 4 of 'Lila' > (I would suggest re-reading, as I am not going to be overly thorough in > quoting): > > "When he told them [Indians on the reservation] he was Dusenberry's > friend they would always say, 'Oh yes, Dusenberry -- he was a *good* > man,'" --- Ham, this *good*, which RMP italicized himself in the > original, is a general moral value judgment. It is not a singly sensed > Hamian Value. > > "Dusenberry could sit there all weekend and gab on and on with them > about their families and their friends and anything they thought was > important, and he just loved that. That's what he was really in > anthropology for. That was his idea of a wonderful weekend." --- > 'important', 'loved', 'wonderful': these reveal the values held by the > indians and Dusenberry! "But Phaedrus ... as soon as he got into it his > mind always drifted off into his own private world of abstractions and > the conversation died." --- RMP valued these 'abstractions' (which count > for naught in your 'essence'). > > "At the college there [Bozeman], now a university, he took out the best > books he could find on anthropology," --- 'best' shows his 'value' > judgment. For you, the 'value' would be the visual stimulus of text, > right? There is no simple, direct value, in your sense, which permitted > him to just find these best books! > > "He could write a totally hones, true and valuable book on the subject, > but..." --- 'valuable book'? You must laugh at this, right Ham? The > book is an illusion, all there is is the sensibility which seems to be > pages and text, but which is an illusion which you create, right? > > "A thesis of this sort is colorful and interesting but it cannot be > considered useful to anthropology without empirical support." --- isn't > this similar to the fact that you maintain that you create your reality > by value-sense, since there can be no other empirical support? Or am I > strecthing this, maybe? ... "What it always means is that you have hit > an invisible wall of prejudice. ... Later, as his Metaphysics of Quality > matured, he developed a name for the wall ... 'cultural immune system'. > But all he saw now was that he wasn't going to get anywhere ... until > that wall had been breached." ... ("Many of the anthropologists seemed > bright, interested, humane people ..." --- again, these words show what > RMP means by value. And this value is constructed by judgement, and is > not directly sensible.) "The key to getting through the wall lay in > re-examining the philosophical attitudes of Boas himself." --- > 'philosophical attitudes', again, are general, AND, abstract, not > sensible. The are what lie behind the directly sensible phenomena that > come from a Boas *doing* his anthropology, and which RMP sensed (with > his sensibility, as you mean it). > > "Margaret Mead said [of Boas], "He feared premature generalizations like > the plague, and continually warned us against it." Generalizations > should be based on the facts and only on the facts." --- facts being > akin to your 'Value', no? "'It is indubitable that science was his > [Boas' again] religion,' Kroeber said. 'He called his early conviction > materialistic [valuistic?]. Science could tolerate nothing 'subjective' > [synthetic?]; value judgments - and by infection even values considered > as phenomena - must be absolutely excluded." > > "How are you going to prove in terms of the laws of physics that a > certain attitude exists within a culture?" --- 'attitude' and 'culture' > are keys to RMP's idea of 'value'. So, rather: how are you going to > prove in terms of Hamian Value(-sense) that a certain attitude exists > within nothingness? --- "What is an attitude in terms of the laws of > molecular interaction? What is a cultural value? How are you going to > show *scientifically* that a certain culture has certain values? > [Paragraph] You can't. [Paragraph] Science has no values. Not > officially. ..." > > "The trouble was that man isn't suited to this kind of scientific > objective study." > > "Some, following Boas' scientific purity said there were no values at > all. [Paragraph] That idea that anthropology has no values Phaedrus > marked down as the 'spot.' That was the place where the wall could best > be breached. No values, huh? No Quality? This was the point of focus > where he could begin an attack. [Paragraph] What many were trying to do, > evidently, was get out of all these metaphysical quarrels by condemning > all theory, by agreeing not to even *talk* about such theoretical > reductionist things as what savages do in general. They restricted > themselves to what *their* particular savage happened to do on > Wednesday. That was scientifically safe all right - and scientifically > useless." --- Ham, seriously, I have been asking you to show me how > your theory of 'Value-sense' permits a proprietary I to *do*. All I see > is that you can tell me what I sense, now, but you forsake anything > behind that sense as illusion, and you provide a 'useless' I: an I that > can sense, but cannot *do*! > > "If you can't generalize from data [facts; Hamian Value?] there's > nothing else you can do with it either." > "Data without generalization is just gossip." > > "When Mahony sent Sidis's book 'The animate and the inanimate' to > another eccentric genius, Buckminster Fuller, Fuller found it 'a fine > cosmological piece' that astoundingly predicted the existence of black > holes - in 1925!" --- such prediction is the exact opposite of what how > your Value-sense reduces the rose to pure illusion! Further, I wonder > what is in a cosmological piece entitles as such, I'm sure it appeals to > ideas of dynamic and static. (http://www.sidis.net/ANIMContents.htm) > > "The problem wasn't that it wasn't true. The problem was that nobody > was interested." --- it is the 'interest' which is RMP's value, not the > sensible event that permitted the individuals of the culture to come to > their judgments that there was nothing of interest. > > Chapter 5: > > "He would get out of the impasse by expanding the format. [Paragraph] : > > > > > [From Horse] "The key was values, he thought. That was the weakest spot in > > the whole > > wall of cultural > > immunity to new ideas the anthropologists had built around themselves. > > Value was a term they > > had to use, but under Boas’ science value does not really exist." > > "Elsewhere Kluckhohn had said, 'Values provide the only basis for fully > intelligible comprehension of culture because the actual organization of > all cultures is primarily in terms of their values." --- Ham, I never > saw the word 'culture' in your thesis - though you did talk about > freedom and America. But your Value is about sense, which is, at most, > only indirectly related to culture. Right? > > anyway, this is enough, for now at least; we can look into chapter 5 if > you want. > > let me just note that this below was mis-attributed to me: > > > On 12/12/2010 18:30, Ham Priday wrote: > > > Hi Horse [Tim mentioned] -- > > > > > >> '=' in the sense that Quality = Reality is saying that they are the > > >> same thing. > > >> If I refer to Venus, the Morning Star or the Evening Star by saying > > >> Venus = Morning Star = Evening Star, I'm not saying there is an > > >> equivalence, I'm saying that they are exactly identical. The only > > >> difference is the form of the linguistic label. There is no > > >> difference in their value. > > > > > Tim > -- > > [email protected] > > -- > http://www.fastmail.fm - Or how I learned to stop worrying and > love email again > > 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 -- [email protected] -- http://www.fastmail.fm - Send your email first class 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
