[MD] For Peter

[Platt Holden]

Ham-

> [Ham, previously]:
> > Unrealized value is a malapropism.  Without sensible awareness
> > there can be no consciousness and no realization.
> > Which for "theists" like ourselves suggests a reason for the
> > agency of  individuated selfness.
> >
> > Do you agree?
> 
> [Platt]:
> 
> > Well, yes and no. I think there's a reason for being self-aware,
> > namely that being so is better than not being so. But, of course,
> > I can't prove it. :-)
> 
> You "think" that being is better than not being?  I don't believe for a 
> moment that this flippancy about your existence is sincere.  Can there be
> any doubt that your survival as a human being is the biological, social,
> and 
> intellectual purpose of Platt Holden?

Flippancy? I call it straight talk unencumbered by a lot of unnecessary 
words.
My "purpose" to survive is to maintain value, i.e., my awareness.
But there may be times when that purpose changes to risk sacrificing my 
value for a higher one, e.g., "Give me liberty or give me death."
 
> Ron has initiated another debate (Core problemS) about whether the levels
> are discrete or continuous, from which I shall recuse myself because
> they're 
> meaningless.  Value, on the other hand, is self-evident, as Pirsig himself
> made quite clear.  This is not an 'apples and pears' comparison or an 
> aesthetic judgment call.  It's a given.  There is no value greater or more
> vital to the individual than his own existence.  Every decision and action
> that you perform in life is to preserve, sustain and enrich your being in
> the world.  Even if you were unconscious, your biological functions would
> continue working toward that purpose.

That's what I said.  I just used fewer words.  But as noted, the "given" 
can be altered.

> When I started describing Essentialism on this forum, I assumed that the
> value of being-aware was a universal, self-evident principle.  Instead it
> seems to be the most difficult concept I've had to get across here. 

I don't recall anyone here saying he didn't value his awareness. In fact, 
it's nearly impossible not to because awareness and value are the same.

> Whether 
> it's the levels hierarchy, the notion of a moral universe, or Pirsig's 
> overcoming of duality, the MoQists by their own description are selfless
> automatons produced and controlled by biological, social and intellectual
> forces whose only purpose is to move an insensible universe toward its own
> inevitable betterness.  I suppose we should be thankful for this fleeting
> taste of cosmic value.
> 
> This is worse than postmodern nihilism.  This is living in a state of
> total 
> self-denial.
> 
> IMHO, of course.

Well, we've discussed before the ways you may have misinterpreted the MOQ.
When Pirsig says experience is reality, he's talking about your experience 
as well as mine. Further, he says experience is value -- not OF value -- 
but value. There's no separation. Our judgments of value may differ due to 
our different life histories (rock vs. Mozart) . But value as primary 
awareness permeates you, me and everyone all the time.

IMO, of course.

Best regards,
Platt