Hi Mark, Joe, Andre, and All --
On Mon, May 23, 2011 at 3:34 PM, "118" <[email protected]> wrote:
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.
Thanks for the kind words of encouragement, Mark. I am not at all
frustrated by the "side babble"; it proves that I've struck a sensitive
cord. And, as you suggest more politely, sometimes a good kick in the ass
is what's needed to move our belief system out of stagnancy.
I'm not as confident, however, that Value as man's "affinity for the Source"
is compatible with the MoQ in its present form. Pirsig is a monist only in
the pan-existential sense, by which I mean he's not an absolutist. Quality
is the ground of his universe, not its creator or source. The problem with
this ideology is that its focus is restricted to an evolutionary world in
process, rather than man's role in that world.
Natural evolution doesn't provide a very useful model of morality for
rational, value-seeking creatures. If "moving to betterness" means growing
ever more complex and sophisticated, and biogenesis is the driving force,
the "fittest" will survive to perpetuate our species toward that goal.
Where does that leave mankind with all his reason and value-sensibility?
What purpose does he serve in this moral system other than to accommodate
his behavior to natural process? If this is what we call a Quality
existence, surely we are in need of something more than a comprehensible
definition of Quality.
I joined the MD at RMP's invitation in 2002, hoping to learn more about
Value as a metaphysical principle. Although I enjoyed the author's novels,
I was more intrigued by the Quality cosmology set forth in the SODV
presentation paper, and by the expanded insights of a few "adventurous"
participants on this forum. It does seems to me, however, that far too much
effort is expended here in an attempt to re-create the world according to
Pirsig's hierarchical paradigm and too little on exploring the dynamics of
Value which is the central theme of Qualityism.
Because it is clear to me that man is the free "value agent" of his
universe, I remain convinced that existence is essentially an
anthropocentric system. While many of you see this as a heretical view of a
philosophy that posits Quality as the sole agency, a valuistic philosophy
that rejects both the sensible knower and his metaphysical source is not
plausible to me. On the other hand, if I can effectively show that the
realization of Quality (Value) presupposes a sensible agent which, in turn,
necessitates an uncreated source, who can say how this might impact on MoQ's
future?
Essentially yours,
Ham
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
On Thu, May 19, 2011 at 9:25 PM, Ham Priday <[email protected]> wrote:
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
