Hey there folks. I've been keeping quiet so i can figure out how other people have been thinking about this topic. You know, the whole listen before you speak thing. With that said, i'd like to admit that the whole time i've been itchin to say my own piece. so here's my 900 pound gorilla.
Prisig: "In the past this biological sense of value has been called the "subjective" because there values cannot be located in an external physical object. But quantum theory has destroyed the idea that only properties located in external physical objects have reality." Value aren't 'just' (heehee) phenomena, value are events taking place between two or more things. Absolute zero has value only in reference to the movement of the world (and scientists trying to create it), just as existence has value only in reference to consciousness percieving it, and trees falling in the middle of nowhere only have value in reference to the microorganisms decomposing it and the insects and birds formerly in residence. Values in terms of our senses; we could just as coherently talk about "valuing through our senses" as we can using the word "sensing". Light waves of a certain frequency have to be between two mathematical values for humans to 'sense' (biological value), not notice (unconscious value), be aware of (conscious passive value) or 'value' (conscious active value like/dislike) them. Sound waves have to be between certain frequencies, pressure & weight has to be in certain proportions to other pressures for us to feel them etc. When we sense the world, it's because they fall betwixt certain static values set by our neuro-physiological system (a product of evolution) further refined by our ability to notice (consciousness) and further refined by our ability to select whether we like the experience (valuing). Pirisig quote: "At birth this sense of value is extremely Dynamic but as the infant grows up this sense of value becomes more and more influenced by accumulated static patterns." So while an infant learns to make sense of the world whilst it's nervous system is still developing (to sense/value space, faces, objects, noise vs. voice etc) the infant is also becoming aware of the world (within biological-social values) as well as liking and disliking (individual valuing) these phenomena in the world in a mental way. Both the neurological and mental learning is dynamic. But as the infant learns the difference between faces and other objects, and whether it likes big-faced "coochie-cooing" they become static value/patterns. Dynamic valuing: Bees detect ultraviolet light, they have different literal value systems than humans, as do dogs with olfactory values(ystems) and the sonic perception of bats. Scientifically, when whoever discovered X-rays and Gamma rays through instrumentation, they added the ability to value the universe/existence/etc. through those instruments to the collective epistemology (shudder) of humanity. When we learn to subtly recognize different nuances of the world, we are valuing dynamically. When men move from seeing 'red' to seeing 'rouge' or 'maroon' then women value them, just as the men are valuing the differences between the colors. But after we become accustomed to these dynamic values they become static, normal: X-rays for your teeth and chest and becoming accustomed to your favorite song. These mathematical/physiological values are thought to be a different kind of value than that of 'good art' or 'moral action' (hint: do both). However, they both come under the umbrella idea of value, and i think that means a lot, albeit unconsciously. Consciously i think the difference lay only in the frame of reference from which we attribute the 'valuing'. Biologically we value the world through our sensory systems. Chemicals value the world through their interactions with (and not with) other chemicals. Mentally we select objects, events and experiences which we percieve to be 'right for us'. However, consciousness also lets us value 'right for others' in terms of what others like or don't like and in a more abstract fashion, individualism (moral law). I'll admit that my argument runs into trouble when Pirisig writes: "It [the MOQ] says this sense of value, of liking or disliking, is a primary sense that is a kind of gatekeeper for everything else an infant learns". You'd have to agree with me that 'value' includes not only the mental part of what Pirisig writes, but also the neurological development of the child if my argument is to make sense. So when the members of the list talked about the valuing being 'analogous' to the sensory systems, i was a bit confused. I make a picture of a hierarchy where 'valuing' sits at the top as the idea and our sensory systems, our liking/disliking, our awareness, bees sensory systems, the 'preferences' of chemicals and so forth to be EXAMPLES of valuing, not simply analogs. Amilcar "life ain't nothing but a series of competing epistemologies" -me Dance 'til your knees hurt Giggle 'til you're gone Love with abandon Do ----Original Message Follows---- From: "Valence" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: MF Discussion Topic for January 2004 Date: Wed, 7 Jan 2004 20:22:52 -0500 Hey Mark and all, In response to Mark's request for textual context, I would offer the following.... PIRSIG (SODV--- discussing his MoQ diagram): "In the third box are the biological patterns: senses of touch, sight hearing, smell and taste. The Metaphysics of Quality follows the empirical tradition here in saying that the senses are the starting point of reality, but -- all importantly -- it includes a sense of value. Values are phenomena. To ignore them is to misread the world. It says this sense of value, of liking or disliking, is a primary sense that is a kind of gatekeeper for everything else an infant learns. At birth this sense of value is extremely Dynamic but as the infant grows up this sense of value becomes more and more influenced by accumulated static patterns. In the past this biological sense of value has been called the "subjective" because there values cannot be located in an external physical object. But quantum theory has destroyed the idea that only properties located in external physical objects have reality." R This quote is typical of a thread that runs throughout out Pirsig's thoughts in LILA and on the MoQ in general. Pirsig often makes reference to a 'sense of betterness' (like with the Brujo) or a 'sense of quality' (like with Lila). Now, I am not qualified to pronounce on whether quantum theory has destroyed the idea that only properties located in external physical objects have reality, but my own 'sense of quality' tells me that there is something weird about the idea presented above. Unfortunately, I'm a little pressed for time tonight, but on Saturday I will send a post detailing my problems with the above. take care rick MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_focus/ MF Queries - [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe from moq_focus follow the instructions at: http://www.moq.org/mf/subscribe.html _________________________________________________________________ High-speed users-be more efficient online with the new MSN Premium Internet Software. http://join.msn.com/?pgmarket=en-us&page=byoa/prem&ST=1 MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_focus/ MF Queries - [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe from moq_focus follow the instructions at: http://www.moq.org/mf/subscribe.html
