Hi Ham, Just got to this.
On Mon, May 23, 2011 at 10:21 PM, Ham Priday <[email protected]> wrote: > > 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. [Mark] I agree to a degree. History suggests that man cycles through stages. The science cycle is one of those. Science began to gain popularity around 1600, after going underground for many centuries. Because of the increase in communication, this cycle will probably be quite short. Essentialism has been around forever, albeit under different names. It is the perennial awareness of man, always existing even in the worst (most scientific) of times. Pirsig used the tools at his disposal to convey his message. This is no different from those in previous ages. These tools were the analogies derived from science. From a higher perspective, evolution and creation are the same thing. I am not alone in presenting this. Many interpret evolution in its biological sense (Darwinism). But Darwin did not invent the term by any means. Obviously the word existed long before he was born. However, the way it is used today is extremely restrictive. It places man as a chance in a world of chance, which of course is one form of existentialism. Man becomes a result rather than a cause. Your ontology does its best to point out another solution to our modern day crisis, and therefore I commend you on it. A world of responsibility seems much better than a world of victims, in my opinion. > > 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. [Mark] You are correct, in the way evolution is being used these days. In fact it can be considered as amoral. The whole concept of betterness is absolute teleology and can only be described in hindsight. It does not provide direction, only faith (which is fine). If by definition things become better, then that is where it is heading. I can't argue with that silly logic. Man is no more sophisticated than he was 30 thousand years ago. So the temporal concept of sophistication does not work unless dealt with in clumps (such as the Age of Man). I do not believe that an existential existence has much quality. As you rightly suggest, we are much more than meat robots. > > 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. [Mark] Yeah, there are a few diamonds in the rough, but they are usually buried by the dogmatists who do not like change. You and I did have a discussion on the dynamics of Value (Quality in my dictionary) and I cannot remember where we ended up. I do remember that it was fun and not too many people provided their 2 cents. > > 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? [Mark] I would change your sentence at the beginning of the paragraph and say "that man is [a] free "value agent" of [the] universe". As you know, I am not as glamorous about man as you are. You are correct, however, that man is the value agent of what he creates. However, it is not hard to extrapolate and say that a goat is a "value agent". There is no reason why a goat cannot sense value. I do not see Quality as an agency. I see man as an interpreter, or presenter, of Quality, in this sense he is an agency. I do not reject the knower or his metaphysical source. For me the Absolute Source can be called Quality. I am not sure about MoQ's future, and this is individualized since MoQ is a personal awareness, not a doctrine. I assume a sensible agent, and believe an uncreated source. I've got no problem with that, and believe it is consistent with MoQ. Good Luck! Mark > > > _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ > > 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 > 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
