[MD] Value and the Individual

[Ham Priday]

Ron replies to Ham's assertion:

> It is impossible to describe an experience without
> distinguishing its relations.

[Ron]:
> Exactly, he's not talking about describing experience
> he talking about feeling it.  Ever been "sucker punched"
> or been given a "hot foot"?
> I can tell you from experience that intellect does not
> factor into immediate painful experience.  Only after you
> recover does intellect put an understanding on it.

So, is raw pain what you define as "pre-intellectual experience"?  If so, 
how is it "the most certain of experiences - ones in which meaning holds the 
most value"?

[Ron]:
> Aw come on Ham, you never took your mothers advice?
> When she told you to stop crossing your eyes because
> they might stay that way did you believe her? Did you
> believe in santa clause without actually meeting him?

[Ham, previously]:
> I don't see that any single value assessment I make is
> "more certain" than any other.  Value realization has nothing
> to do with Truth but everything to so with Sensibility,
> which is man's essence.

[Ron]:
> So having sex and watching someone having sex
> is the same to you?

How on earth do you arrive at that conclusion?

[Ham, previously]:
> Again, I do not acknowledge "pre-intellectual experiences".
> Can you provide an example of one?

[Ron]:
> Blindfold yourself and run around your house.
> Really give it a shot. See what surprises you as far as
> experience. Careful with the stairs though, I don't want
> you killin yourself.

That's an experience that will teach me something about Morality? 
Certainty?
Value?  Do you take me for an idiot, Ron?

[Ham, previously]:
> I strongly suspect that Pirsig has contrived this multi-level
> hierarchy mainly to avoid acknowledging a "supernatural" source.

[Ron]:
> Probably because there is no evidence of such,
> other than anthropic meaning.

Perhaps, then, we should be looking into anthropic 
meaning--anthropocentricity, to be specific. Have you dismissed all the 
arguments for an anthropocentric universe?

[Ron]:
> All in all that is probably a good way of looking at it,
> mysticism. Cognizant awareness is not necessarily limited
> to intellectual Interpretation. Ever have intuition or a gut feeling?

Yes, but it proved unreliable  I'm not impressed with your examples of 
"pre-intellectual experiences," Ron, nor with your exaggerated belief in 
their certainty.

[Ron]:
> [Y]ou are ever an interesting dialectic partner, you are
> well spoken and highly intelligent.  Opinions differ, but I
> do have fun discussing them with you. You teach me a
> great deal.  I thank you for that.

Stop; you're making me blush, Ron!  There is no evidence of what I've 
"taught" you so far in this discussion.  Indeed, it would appear that we've 
locked heads.

I might ask this, just for the record.  Do you agree with Krimel that 
"cosmic purpose is an absurd notion"?

Regards,
Ham