Hey Ham, I am back to regular rational discourse now. I will comment below.
On Tue, Apr 26, 2011 at 11:39 PM, Ham Priday <[email protected]> wrote: [SNIP] > > You mistake my motive, Mark. I am not looking for logical syllogisms or > even analogies to illustrate them. I am simply examining what we know from > experience that can justifiably be encompassed in a metaphysical ontology. > And I have found nothing that supports Mr. Pirsig's invention of Quality as > an independent entity or source. [Mark] You have not found an independent Quality, because it does not exist. At one point, Pirsig brings in an analogy from Taoism where he replaces Tao with Quality, and finds a good fit, in his estimation. I believe this is one of the differences between your ontology and MoQ. MoQ does not have an independent source. One is simply not needed. In my opinion, a metaphysical ontology tries to explain what is. I think that MoQ does that. It would seem that the expression of Quality can be construed as the way things are. Things present themselves through qualities. Why not have the mother of all qualities? > >[Ham] > First of all, I regard the self as "subjective" in relation to an "objective > world". By "trying to break it down," I assume you mean into inorganic, > biological, social, and intellectual levels. No, the self is > value-sensibility, and sensibility is not an existent like your four levels > but an 'essent' which is compartmentalized only by experience. And Value, > what we desire or aspire to, isn't something that has to be "made up". We > feel it immanently; it is our psycho-emotional state at any given time. > "Representing" value (as objective phenomena) is an intellectual process > that does involve brain and sensory activity (organic) on the act of > experience. And, yes, human beings are equipped with "the power" to > actualize the appearance of physical objects. [Mark] I think I understand your ontology, I am doing my best to blend it with MoQ, where neither is dominant. When I say break it down, I am not resorting to the levels. I am pointing more to the DQ sq artificial divide. But, certainly this gets pretty gnarly. Yes, the self can certainly be something which senses value and its existence is through a paradigm of separation. I have said as much when I speak of our apparition as Quality in a human form. The four levels are not existents by any means. They are descriptive terms. I don't think you would call such things as "fast" or "slow" existents would you? Those are qualities. I find it important not to deal with MoQ in terms of structure like the scaffolding of a house. That is a form of misdirection. It is more like "what is the house like?". What are its attributes outside of structure? Is it cozy? These are qualities that can be grouped into levels. > [Mark previously] >> All the atoms in this universe are tending towards betterness, >> that is the only reason why we are as well. > [Ham] > If that is true, then experience is not "the cutting edge of reality" as > Pirsig states, but an effect or consequence of atomic activity. What you > are touting is a kind of godless teleology in which evolution determines > what the individual experiences, values, and responds to -- in other words, > a value system without a free agent. I cannot accept such an automated > ontology. [Mark] I am not sure where you get the idea of Godless teleology. That is kind of a tangent and perhaps non sequitur. Humor me, and see yourself as an atom (this is just a thought experiment), after all you are right in the middle of the very big and the very small. To a galaxy you are like an atom. Such galaxy would not see any free will in you what-so-ever. In the same way, we see atoms as being devoid of free will. Atoms would consider smaller parts to be devoid and so on. All of this myriad of things have direction, which pivots around free will. Everything is a free agent, we cannot ascribe this to just humans, since we are not different. The reason our consciousness is meaningful to us, is because we have a bunch of others to share it with. This is not nihilistic by any means, it is in fact magnificent. We can raise everything up to our level. What more could one ask for out of a meaningful world? If instead we take an attitude of being somehow special, it make the rest of the world meaningless and automated. Why do that? It just seems arrogant to me. > > [Ham]: > Value (goodness) IS realized co-dependently -- the co-dependent contingents > are Self and Other, which translates to value-sensibility in the conscious > self. All I'm saying is that realization of goodness is primary to > actualization of physical reality. Insamuch as actualization is > experiential,.it would seem that my ontogeny is closer to Pirsig's "cutting > edge" than yours. [Mark] Yeah, I am fine with that. Everything is unfolding in the moment. We are all at the cutting edge moment to moment. Everything that happens the next moment will be new and never have happened before. For many who are bored with life, it may not seem that way, but that is their loss. One can get lost in what one thinks it is as opposed to what it is that's making one think. I am not sure what kind of yard-stick I would use to measure the closeness to a cutting edge, so you may be right. > [Mark] previously] >> According to Buddha, Morality is the highest value, and is >> in essence close to your Essence. Are there degrees of >> separation in your ontology, or is it all or nothing? The beauty >> of a melody exists in the presence of a tone deaf person, >> and you know it! > [Ham] > Morality is a social product of man's value-sensibility, not natural > evolution. As you know, I hold to the axiom that "man is the measure of all > things." And unrealized value -- whether it be Beauty, Order, Goodness, or > Justice -- does not exist. So, no, melodic beauty is not realized by a > tone-deaf person. This may be one of the things you call "intellectual > knowing", but it is not realized value. [Mark] I just do not see any evidence for morality being a product of man. Morality comes first, then we tune ourselves to it in our own human way. It would seem that you are diminishing morality considerably, and I am not quite sure why. What about the things that man doesn't measure, what happens to them? Previously I have tried to distinguish from knowing with every fiber of our being, and knowing with a brain which tends to simplify so that it can communicate with others. If you pay attention, you may find that your body knows things that you have never thought about, such as how to keep your heart beating. I think that I need to use another word for such knowing, although it is the basis for our knowing. If nerve cells did not know how to work, we wouldn't know much at all. We already know all about what quantum mechanics is trying to explain. We have to, it is what keeps us together. We know every cell in our bodies and what they do, since these cells are us. They are no stranger. By relegating knowing to that activity of the brain, we are left with only a little itsy bit of knowing. This is indeed a disservice to a remarkable human body. > >[Ham] > I have defined Essence as the ultimate, uncreated, unconditional Reality and > primary source of all appearances. Cusanus theorized it as the "Not other". > Eckhart romanticized it as "absolute IS-ness." Others have called it that > without which nothing can be. Since Essence transcends the concreteness of > finitude, this is the best I can offer by way of definition. [Mark] I am fine with that, I would simply substitute the work Quality for Essence. Since you use the word appearances, it fits quite well. What is Quality but appearances? It is the source and the product all in one. Simple, huh. And, I am being serious. Why have to resort to some mirror image with everything that we have to stand back from? Why not just make everything right here, right now? > > I'm glad I haven't hit a sensitive nerve, Mark. But I do wish my arguments > could penetrate your value sensibility. Well, Ham, the essence of your position is still needs a bit of work so that others can understand it without thinking that you are just making something up. By the way, I like it, for what it's worth, and I get glimmers of actually living in such a world moment to moment. Then I go back to Quality which is much more simple to imagine. > Adios, 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
