[MD] subject/object: no quality?

[MarshaV]

At 01:36 PM 9/17/2007, Ham wrote:

>Dear Marsha --
>
>
> > You used the smallcase 'v' in the word value above, which
> > I think refers to its common usage.  Are you ignoring that
> > the MOQ mostly uses Value and Quality in a special manner?
> > I do not sense that you accept this.  I have noticed this tendency
> > in past.  This can make your statements correct in its usage,
> > but incorrect in relation to the MOQ.  At least that's how I
> > experience it.
>
>You are quite correct in your perception of my "common" usage of Value as a
>departure from Mr. Pirsig's "special" usage.  In that sense I am a renegade
>in this forum, and if this annoys you I apologize and will desist.
>
>Before we abandon this discussion, however, I'd like to hear why you think
>it is necessary to redefine value in order to support the basic MoQ concept.
>
> > You stated that 'value' is manifested.  IS?  Again, in its most
> > common usage this may be true.  I would think that Quality is
> > manifested in static patterns of value, and at the point of the
> > initial intellectual experience.  Dynamic Quality is pre-intellectual
> > and not yet manifested.  Somewhere I believe RMP suggested that
> > Dynamic Quality was in front of the present.  At least that's my
> > understanding.

>[Ham]
>Okay.  If you'll permit me to disregard "static patterns" for the moment,
>I'll rephrase this epistemology in my own terms, and you can decide whether
>my position is in conflict with Pirsig's.
>Since it is my understanding that Pirsig equates Value with Quality, I'll
>use Value in my scenario.
>
>I maintain that value sensibility is primary to conscious awareness.  In
>fact, I say it is the very essence of proprietary awareness.  Therefore, any
>experienced manifestation (i.e., appearance) is derived from
>value-sensibility.  The "objective world" is an intellectual construct of
>value perceived organically by five senses and integrated by the brain.
>This differentiated image of reality is what we call existence.  For
>something to be manifested means "readily perceived by the senses," so that
>experiential existence is our manifestation of value.  Conversely, what we
>don't experience is not manifested, is not sensed as Value, and does not
>exist.

Hmmm.  That the "objective world" is an intellectual construct is 
true, but it is an intellectual construct that needs to change.  A 
new world-view based on relationship and change is in order.  At 
least that's what I think.  The subject/object world-view is a static 
pattern of value, a habit.  World-views change.  I am more and more 
conscious of change and relationship, and less and less conscious of 
otherness.  I discovered this from painting as much as from what I've 
read or heard.  It expanded to other experiences.  I think I agree 
with the rest of this paragraph.


>[Ham]
>Whatever is "in front of the present" can only be conjectured, in my
>opinion, and to suggest that reality is unmanifested value (DQ) is a
>hypothesis of dubious validity.  I do believe there is an "unmoved mover" or
>primary source underlying actualized existence, which I call Essence.  As a
>concept, this has "supreme value" to us, but since value is only manifested
>to the individual subject (and perceived differentially), I submit that it
>is a mistake to regard Essence as Value.

Yes, it is a hypothesis, but dubious is your opinion.  To me an 
"unmoved mover" or primary source is an unnecessary conjecture.  I am 
content with an indivisible, undefinable and unknowable Quality (DQ), 
or Nothingness, or Emptiness.  I don't understand the ""supreme 
value" to us".  Again, my conception and experience of myself as an 
individual subject is changing.  You haven't given any reason that 
you think it is a mistake not to accept Essence (unmoved mover or 
supreme value) as Value.  I don't experience any need to accept it.



>[Marsha];
> > Anthropologists, historians and sociologists talking about "mankind"
> > doesn't mean they can correctly deduce anything about the total
> > population.  And as far as deducing a purpose, that presupposes
> > cause & effect.
>
>Total population has no metaphysical significance.  It is the relation of
>the self to its primary source that is the primary concern of philosophy.

I don't agree with this.


> > I do not think anything exists inherently, not subjects and not
> > objects, not me and not you.
>
>If you mean that nothing can be self-supportive (sui generis), I totally
>agree.  Which is why I insist that all appearance is the actualization of an
>absolute, uncreated source.

Appearance is sq and DQ, interconnected, ever changing static 
patterns of value and Dynamic Quality.  If you want to say DQ is an 
absolute, uncreated source, I don't think I will disagree.


> > I've already mentioned the problem with 'purpose' is presupposing
> > cause & effect.  And now you want to establish the sameness of Life
> > in general.  How do you know?  Speculate away if you like, but
> > without proof it's really empty speculation.
>
>I do not view cosmic purpose as necessarily linked to "cause and effect".
>Space/time is the mode of human experience.  Cause and effect is an
>intellectual construct to make sense of a reality experienced as evolving in
>time.  But the purpose of man's existence should not be construed in terms
>of his finite mode of experience.  Yes, this is only a theory--"speculation"
>if you like--but it is no more speculative than to regard unmanifested value
>as the primary source.

I can't get my mind around a purposeless purpose.  Isn't a purpose an 
intention for an effect?   If it is your hypothesis, that's fine.


> > Do you like to dance?
>
>Is that an invitation, Marsha?  I didn't know you cared!  I learned to waltz
>in a musical I participated in during my college years, and enjoyed it; but
>I was never much of a dancer in my youth, and I'm too old to take it up now,
>thank you.

You're never too old to dance.  It's a very natural thing to do, very 
dynamic if you allow it.


> > I may even believe partially as you do, but I do not know anything.
>
>The fact that you find only some of what I say believable is a source of
>great satisfaction to me.
>One's personal philosophy can never be more than a conviction.  In that
>sense, nobody knows anything for a certainly.  But don't underestimate your
>intuitive reasoning.  It has far more power in your life than factual
>knowledge.

Well, to act in this world one adopts values.  Yours sound very admirable.


>Thanks for this opportunity to express my views.  I've enjoyed the
>discussion.
>
>Affectionately,
>Ham

As much as I am here because of the MOQ, I am equally here because of 
Lila (the woman).  I think her soliloquy was astonishingly 
true.  Whatever you think it is, that's what it is.

This has been good for me.  Thank you.

Marsha