[MD] Values

[Ham Priday]

Ron --

[Ham previously]:
> It's the generalization of specifics that conflates Pirsig's
> philosophy.  His preferred term "Quality" is used to encompass
> both as All.  My contention is that this is an epistemological oversight.

 [Ron]:
> It certainly does seem create a lot of confusion here on the forum.

[Ham]:
> Value, as I use this term, is specific to the individual.  It is
> proprietary sensibility -- Pirsig's "pre-intellectual experience".  But
> it is not experience until it is differentiated by the sensory receptors
> and brain of the individual subject.  The integration of this sensory
> data "objectivizes" being and makes the appearance of reality
> different for each subject.
> All existence is differentiated experience of what is ultimately One.

[Ron]:
> I agree with you on this.
> Sounds like your ideas fall in with William James "the moral
> Philosopher and the Moral Life" where his metaphysical question
> is the contention that to be good, something has to be desired
> by some sentient being.

I would say that for life to have meaning, something must be desired by a 
sentient agent.
I've read James' "Varieties of Religious Experience", but not much of his 
morality.  Can you point me to a quote that expresses this idea?  (I might 
have use for it in one of my essays.)

[Ron]:
> I think you and Pirsig are closer than what you think but I do see your
> point. I understand now why you stress
> the individual and the uniqueness of experience.

[Ham]:
> Only an epistemology that acknowledges the "agency" of existence can
> provide a rationale for the meaning of life.  IMO this is sorely lacking
> in the MoQ.

[Ron]:
> Following that, the only meaning is what the individual assigns to it
> given the unique perspective of the experience of the essent.

The assignment of value by the individual subject is itself a purpose with 
metaphysical meaning.
The self is the existential agent that actualizes value as physical reality.

[Ron]:
> Either I'm understanding Essentialism more or
> you are presenting it clearer with every post.

Hopefully, it's a little of both ;-)  I think I now understand the 
fundamental differences between these two philosophies better than a year 
ago, and am trying to sharpen my discussion of them.  But this also requires 
some flexibility on the part of my correspondent, and a "non-prejudicial 
mindset" such as you have demonstrated is a big help toward this end.

Thanks for the encouragement, Ron.

Best regards,
Ham