[DMB]
As with the hot stove example, this undefined value can be positive or
negative. Betterness works in both directions, away from the negative or toward
the positive.
[Arlo]
I might be splitting hairs, but I see this coming into play as a response to
DQ, what I was getting at with 'conflict of patterns'. In this 'response'
context, it is always evaluative, a movement towards betterness and/or away
from negative/low quality. Before this conflict, before evaluation (including
the pre-intellectual awareness), when there is no conflict, just the immediate
NOW! moment, this is the moment of pure Quality, pure VALUE. To say "from a
pure value perspective nothing is better or worse" is silly. Its like saying
"in the moment of pure Quality, nothing is Quality". In that moment, all there
is is value; a movement towards betterness. Should as asteroid hit earth and
obliterate most life, the resultant situation would be very much a decrease in
betterness for human life. But that asteroid is not 'negative quality', from
its own context, it is 'betterness', those inorganic patterns are simply
pursuing betterness, nothing more. Same with that amoeba. The acid d
oes not have 'negative' or 'low' quality. As a compound, its a high-quality
pattern, it exists because to those inorganic pieces it is better that it
exists. Its only 'negative' in the context of conflict with the amoeba. To the
amoeba, its very low quality. So in a hypothetical decontextualized world,
every 'pattern' is a 'pattern of betterness', it was 'betterness' from which it
emerges, i.e., it is better for that pattern to exist, if it wasn't then the
pattern would not exist in the first place. So you have this force of
'betterness' leaving all these little patterns of 'betterness' in its wake, but
these patterns do interact, and that causes conflict, and I think its at that
moment when evaluative considers of 'worseness' come into play. Anyway, maybe
its splitting hairs.
"Value, the pragmatic test of truth, is also the primary empirical experience.
The MOQ says pure experience is value. Experience which is not valued is not
experienced. The two are the same. This is where value fits. Value is not at
the tail-end of a series of superficial scientific deductions that puts it
somewhere in a mysterious undetermined location in the cortex of the braisn.
Value is at the very front of the empirical procession." (Lila 365)
If I'm not articulating it well, this is exactly what I am saying. It makes no
sense to say "value is not better or worse".
[DMB]
Without such clarifications, Marsha just seems to be making a logically
impossible claim: the world is value all the way down, but half of it is devoid
of value.
[Arlo]
Exactly.
Hey, just a quick note, I've finally got around to listening to the Partially
Examined Life podcast of Peirce and James (episode 11, I think?). It has
motivated me to plan a roadtrip to the C.S. Peirce homestead ("Arisbe") in
Milford, about 3 hours from here towards the Poconos. Its managed by the
National Park Service. Will post photos on Facebook (and see if any one wants
to come along, although most of my Peircian friends live elsewhere).
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
