Hey Ham, Do not get frustrated with all this side babble in your thread. I have found that if one stays consistent (which you do) that people will come around. Some of the statements that I made years ago, which were questioned or ridiculed, are now being adopted by many in this forum.
On Thu, May 19, 2011 at 9:25 PM, Ham Priday <[email protected]> wrote: > Joe and Andre -- > > Since Joe has directed your recent exchange to me, I've added some comment > below. > >> Joe: >> The intellect requires defined terms for logic SQ. >> >> Andre: >> I hope you mean 'logic' within a MOQ sense as expounded in LILA. > > It's no wonder Andre thinks "the other side of Value" is a funny title. You > guys are so > busy twisting epistemology into an SOM pretzel, you never give a thought to > what Value is. All of this discourse concerning definitions, reification, > intellection, and logic only complicates the ontology unnecessarily, adding > to the confusion. [Mark] Twisting is a good phrase, Ham. There is also the lack of evolution of MoQ considered to be important for many. Your voice tries to create evolution, and is sometimes seen as threatening. Many on this forum have just read Lila, or are stuck twenty years ago. These people also speak of Pirsig's MoQ as if that would impart some authority to what they present. Pirsig presented Lila as an inquiry, or platform for more development. If we stayed true to Sartre's Existentialism, much would be lost. How some people present their understanding reminds me of going on a plane trip and being stuck on the runway. These people assume that being on such a plane is the trip in itself, and have no idea what it means to actually take off. They are further supported if the plane returns to the gate without taking off. Your presentation of "the other side" is lost on those. If I may another analogy, many are skating on ice not knowing how thin it may be. To them there is no "other side" and are fully absorbed in a shadow land. If the ice does break, they are left helpless such as Pirsig was before ZMM. By understanding the other side, this is not necessary, and Pirsig provides many stories along these lines. I too have fallen through the ice. Instead of it being cold and impersonal, I found it to be just the opposite. So, knowledge of the other side is indeed useful if one wants to keep moving and not be stuck under the ice wanting for air. The analogy, of course falls apart in terms of "attraction", although many are attracted to death which they consider to be an unknown. Such fear also keeps them skating on the top and making pretty figure eights. These figures look the same from underneath and so such fear is not necessary. Once we recognize this as ice, and that there is another side, then we can learn much more. Such doors are waiting to be opened. > > Has the thought ever occurred to either of you that Value is the > individual's attraction to the uncreated Source? (I guess not, since you > don't acknowledge a source.) Let me simplify it for you. > > Quality (Value) has no generative power and doesn't exist in the absence of > a sensible agent to realize it. You and I are the value-sensible agents. > All experience is valuistic. The things we experience are objectivized > representations of the Value we sense. (That's why Pirsig calls them > "Quality patterns".) The act of experience differentiates value > incrementally into the phenomenal order we call existence. The "other side" > of Value is its uncreated Source. > > Value doesn't just spring up from nothingness. It's an aspect of the > unconditional Source -- the only essential aspect that we can experience. > Absolute Essence has the power to negate the appearance of an "other". We > are the cognizant agents of this appearance. We sense Value because of our > affinity for Essence; we experience reality as otherness because we are > estranged from the source of Value. We gratify our desire for the Absolute > Source by turning Value into the "finite desiderata" of experience. Our > role as free agents is to realize the Value of Essence by bringing it into > existence as differentiated being. > > This may strike you as a radical departure from the official MoQ doctrine. > But you'll have to admit it's a much simpler ontology to comprehend. > [Mark] Yes, some seem to create this Mystical sense which seems so glamorous. I am all for simplicity. It works for me in science. > Thanks for the opportunity, gentlemen, > > Essentially speaking, > Ham [Mark] Thanks for the thread Ham. In kindred spirit, 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
