G'day Mark --
Hi Ham, Bet you knew I would reply as your old nemesis. Thanks for trying to harmonize, it is the same thing that I attempt. I will provide some input into your topic and try to stay rational.
You are not my "nemesis", Mark ...just a rational thinker who has swallowed too much of the Quality doctrine.
[Ham previously]:
Quality is a common label that we apply to objects, merchandise, and experiences that we sense as virtuous, good, or worthy in some way. Pirsig's philosophy is, at its core, a cosmology of Goodness. But it also points to something else -- the "motivational power" of Value that transcends experience. How can motivation extend beyond human experience? This, I submit, is the question the MoQ fails to address.
[Mark]:
This is one way to describe Quality. If you think about it, all we can sense is the quality of something. That is, how it is expressed. We have no notion of the actual thing itself, only its interaction with us. In this way, Quality is at the interface of us and something else.
Well put, Mark. We only sense the quality of something, which is its Value to us. We turn this Value into experience by objectifying (actualizing) it in the space/time world. But this is only OUR side of the Value (Quality) interface, so we don't see the whole picture.
In terms of your second point. I have made clear that such motivation extends way beyond human experience, and what we sense is the "humanized" variety of such motivation. Such motivation is held at all levels, just look at the behavior of a gas introduced into a vacuum. Motivation is, as you say, a component of MoQ. It is a driving force of Quality. I will leave it at that for now and await some comments.
That is not what I meant by "extending beyond". I wasn't inferring that gases in a vacuum, metals in a magnetic field, or trees and vegetables are "consciously motivated". What I meant by "the motivational power of Value that transcends experience" is that the cosmic principles which direct the behavior of physical phenomena are imbued in the Value from which our experience of process is derived. The forces we intellectualize as Boyle's Law, gravity, and electro-dynamics in our experiential world are the teleological counterparts of Essential Value which transcends finitude. In other words, there is no need to revert to animism in explaining the processes of Nature.
[Ham]:
Mr. Pirsig has told us that Quality (Value) is not an attribute of either things or the apprehending self. It exists in its own threshold, independently of the patterns that constitute the universe and the beings that experience it. He claims it is indefinable, yet insists it is the moral ground of reality. How does he know that the universe is a "moral system"? What evidence does he provide that its evolution progresses to betterness? And what is the final result or goal of this process? Indeed, is it ever attained?
[Mark]:
I am not sure of this rendition of Quality since Quality can be subdivided. Qualities are expressed by all, that is how we know it is there. But I have agreed to leave that part of MoQ out. Quality is part of the patterns, not separate. It is what creates experience. Again, think about it, all we experience are qualities. The world can be viewed as a moral system since it is a driving force within us humans. We are expressing the human equivalent of Morality. It is, as stated, not only a human value. Again, I will say that we cannot get something from nothing. We cannot make morality up. We can certainly experience its force, which is what we do. The notion of "betterness" becomes highly teleological. This is also a problem with defining evolution through "that which survives". So, such a notion of betterness can be said to arise out of our personal relationship with the universe. This betterness is part of our make-up in our daily actions. We can therefore postulate that it is something that exists.
I would say that we do "make morality up", but pehaps that's because I have a different concept of Morality that you're using in this argument. Man's morality (i.e., humanism, individual liberty, social justice, 'do unto others...', etc.) is a code of behavior rationalized by humans for the preservation of civilization. Our concept of "betterness" (morality) may be the "human equivalent" of value-sensibility; however, it is not directly imposed on us by Value (Quality). Every culture develops its own "morality system", which demonstrates that "betterness" is open to free choice.
[Ham]:
Let's assume that there is a "perfect entity" which we can only know as differentiated otherness. ... We know this shadow-world must represent something "real", but we can't discern what that reality is. Instead we measure the shadows, observe their behavior, give them proper names, study their dynamics and theorize their causes. Through it all, we yearn for the essence of their being. In short, we want the essence of being for ourselves.
[Mark]:
Yes, Quality is a perfect entity, expressed perfectly in the moment. But I am fine with your otherness as well, since it can be reduced to the same thing. The moment cannot be sub-divided, therefore Occam's Razor does not apply.
I don't know what "expressed perfectly in the moment" means. There is nothing "perfect" in man's limited sensibility or experience. Perfection can be no more than a conceptualized ideal in the human mind, whether momentary or cumulatively conceived.
The shadows which we see are cast by Quality.
The shadows are our "experiential representation" of Value. We ourselves, not Quality (Value), are the actualizers of our reality.
Yes, as with Buddhist thought, we sense an incompleteness in what we experience (also mistakenly termed "suffering"). We want to experience Quality as ourselves, which is what is achieved through disciplinary mindfulness and Yoga. Many people have done this, and do not just dream about it. Therefore, such yearning can come to an end once it is achieved. This is what Zen is all about; uniting with your essence, and not having to be dead to do it.
Again, I would say that it isn't Quality so much as its "essence" that we seek, and we can only approach it through our realization of Value.
I would not speak of all mankind in this way, but you are correct that some seek such fulfillment.
You don't think we ALL do? Consider the goals and ends toward which we all strive. Are they not all expressions of that longing or aspiration for what lies beyond our valuistic experience? We may not all be consciously aware of our estranged Source, per se. Some think of it as the desire for power or celebrity; others equate it with more romantic notions; but how can we account for human motivation other than being driven by our sense of Value?
Yes, we represent Quality in its human form. In this way, we are Quality. Differentiation is not the norm in our daily lives. Only a small part of our experience is subject to differentiation. This conversation being one of those. Your heart is one with the universe.
No, Mark. Human beings are not "Quality in its human form." Far from it. We are but a sieve through which Value passes, only an infinitesimal portion of which is realized and seized or acted upon as our "value complement". The infinite remainder is One in Essence.
Difference is the MO of Quality. That is why it is called that. It provides Qualities. We are not separated from it in my opinion except perhaps consciously. Instead we are in tune with the whole. Part of the harmony. Meaning is provided to us, we cannot create such things. Nothing from Nothing.
Again I take exception to the notion that "meaning is provided to us". The meaning of life is always relative to the cognitive agent. Working that out for one's self is the very purpose of human existence. Indeed, if meaning were fixed and automatic, the individual would have no choice but to behave as Nature mandates. No, Mark; freedom of choice is man's most precious asset.
[Ham]:
On the other side of sensible value lies the uncreated, unmoved and Absolute Source of this individually cognized world of appearances. Value realization is "essential" in two ways: It is a sensible derivation of the Source; and it is our inextricable connection with the Source. Therefore, it follows that whatever future awaits us when we have departed this life is "valuistic" in nature.
[Mark]:
Well, you know I don't see this, but I am willing to try to harmonize it. The world of appearances is what Quality provides, again, that is why it is named as such. Certainly what awaits us is valuistic, in the same way as what preceded us. If it wasn't we wouldn't be here right now. What Value!
Why it is named as such? Who has named Quality as the world of appearances? I don't recall that definition in Pirsig's writings. What preceded us cannot have been our Value (quality), because we were not there to realize it. Remember my maxim: Unrealized Value is an oxymoron. Value realization is proprietary to the individual subject.
I still see RMP's handwriting on everything you say. Here's to less Quality and more Essence! Essentially spoken, Ham 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
