[MD] Art of Value

[Case]

[Ham]
What about our "external" constructions?  I'm somewhat annoyed by these 
repetitive allusions to the brain as an "antenna" picking up intellectual 
signals or a "mirror" of reality.  Personally, I think Kant's 'TiT' 
rationale is a can of worms, and I have difficulty understanding how the 
Pirsigians can construe an experience-based metaphysics as fostering 
objectivism.

[Case]
My take on this is that we have antenna that are the five sense. They
receive signals from the external world.

[Ham]
I propose replacing the overused TiT ontology with TiS [Things-in-Self]. 
You frequently refer to man's image of reality as a "representation." 
Indeed, finite reality represents precisely what we experience.  The objects

and events that form this space/time reality are what we construct from our 
value sensibility.  We transform otherness into particular "things" having 
particular qualities through our psycho-organic intellection.  We perceive 
physical reality as the evolution of "beings" in time and space because our 
brain and nervous system is wired to observe them dimensionally and in 
transition.  But the "essence" of beingness is Value, not energy, matter, or

mathematical probability.  All of the laws and principles that apply to our 
knowledge of objective reality are intellectualized from experience.  In 
short, the relational world is a construct of man.

With due respect for the "cleverness" of neuroscientists in coming up with 
theories that define human cognizance in terms of neuronic brain cell 
activity, this is how I see the Epistemology of Value.

[Case]
Ok so are you saying that there is no external reality? I mean there are
physicists who say our individual witnessing of events bring the events into
being. 

[Ham]
Are we swapping spit yet?

[Case]
Swapping spit is a southern euphemism for French kissing. I think it's going
to be a while before we are touching tongues.