Hey Ham,
On Fri, Apr 29, 2011 at 3:12 PM, Ham Priday <[email protected]> wrote: > > Yes, Love or Desire is the emotional contingency of positive Value. And, > just as there cannot be objects without a subject to experience them, we > cannot value something without loving or wanting it. I don't know that we > can say the same about (the noun) Quality -- somehow it lacks the emotive > response that's intrinsically attached to Value. All experience evokes some > feeling of positive or negative value, unless we're merely treading water, > which to me suggests that what we experience is 'valuistic' in nature. [Mark] I am not sure that there cannot be objects without a subject to experience them. Could you explain that to me? If something has quality, does that not provide an emotive response. If we group all the different qualities of everything together and call that Quality, is that not extremely emotive? How is the word Value (the noun) any more emotive than Quality? What is it that we value? Is it not the quality of such a thing? Isn't a feeling of a positive or negative value an experience? Are you saying that an experience evokes and experience? I am not sure how your are dividing this up. Could you please explain how a feeling is different from an experience? > > As "SOMists", we are habituated to the belief that the essence of value > resides in the thing experienced, that the object or personage of our > experience is the value we seek. The idea of a "higher, undefinable value" > called DQ is a way of pointing to the essence of Value. As Dan says, "... > Dynamic Quality is always right here! Right in front of us!" But why is > it not accessible to us empirically? Why is it hidden from us > intellectually? [Mark] Yes, some claim that objects contain quality, which they clearly can not. Quality creates objects, wouldn't you agree? This appears to be what you are saying if I read you correctly. Personage is a quality, no? Our experience of intellectual-ness is Dynamic Quality in action, I do not see how it can be anything other than that. If it is not dynamic quality, then we need to label it? It is not hidden from us. As I read in another good post, does water get thirsty? Are our eyes hidden from us? If we are dynamic quality, what is there to hide? Can a finger point at itself? Can we point at Dynamic Quality. I see a lot of incongruity in what some others post. How can we find something when we are it? > > My answer is that, although value always "points to" some greater essence, > Essence is not our nature. Instead, we have a "sense of Value" that is not > experienced, but that drives experience to represent it objectively. Value > sensibility, like Pirsig says about Quality, is "pre-intellectual", whereas > experience can be, and is, intellectualized. So what passes for the essence > of Value as things and events ("quality patterns") is our intellectualized > synthesis of value-sensibility. [Mark] If we cannot experience it, as you say, then why point at it? I cannot experience being inside of an elephant either. This does not make such a phenomenon special. If you are speaking of motivation and hope, then there are much less hidden ways to explain these things. The objectification of experience is simply part of communication, a tool of the Societal Level. If we had nobody to talk to, we would not need to objectivize, since words would not be necessary. Experience would be direct (as it is for most of our day). Objectification is an impingement of the Societal Level. Does this not make sense? If not, then why not? It would seem to me that the intellectual can have Value, can it not? If it has value then it is associated with Quality. I do not see how we can draw a strict line between what is real and what is an image. Intellectual synthesis is dynamic quality in action. It has to be, there is no way to tease it away from everything else. Isn't the fragrance of a flower part of the flower? Isn't our intellectualization part of our pre-intellectual? > > We actualize phenomena experientially from sensibility, rather than the > other way around. But because to know that the objective reality we create > for ourselves is an illusion would disorient us, rendering us ineffective > existents in this world, such knowledge imust be hidden from us. This > principle, as it turns out, also affords us the freedom to "test" or measure > a wide spectrum of finite values experientially, which in effect makes us > the existential "agents of value". [Mark] It would appear that you are tending heavily into solipsism here. That is not what MoQ is about. It is not a subjective phenomenon. We "actualize", as you say, from something that is already there. We cannot create such things, there is no place to create them. An illusion is an image of something that really exists. Otherwise we would call it a delusion. If it is an illusion, what is it an illusion of? I am not sure what you are pointing to here. Why would we be ineffective if we saw the world that is hidden? What would happen to us? This is tending towards Nihilism. If we are creating an illusion, what does that say for our free will? Are we free to create an illusion? How does one test an illusion, exactly? Perhaps you are using the term test or measure in a way that I do not yet understand. Could you explain this in more detail? How can we be existential agents of value? How does this happen? A bit more detail is required here. If we create Value out of nothing, what is the purpose of this? How does it fit in with our creation of despair? > As always, I am trying to understand you and have many questions. I hope you don't mind. 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/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
