[MD] Tit's

[MarshaV]

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Ham Priday" <hampday1 at verizon.net>
To: <moq_discuss at moqtalk.org>
Sent: Monday, July 28, 2008 12:58 AM
Subject: Re: [MD] Tit's


> Marsha --
>
>> Both the designs and the designer are conceptually constructed.
>> Both are patterns.  I don't see a problem with the MOQ.
>
> To see the problem you have to go back to the fundamentals.
>
> Remember the 'ex nihilo' principle?  You say the designs and the designer 
> are "conceptually constructed".  "Conceptually" is an adverb that 
> describes conception as the configuring process of the intellect. 
> Anything constructed is a "creation", and creation implies a Creator.
>
> I assume you agree that objects are intellectual patterns,  If so, they 
> are constructed FROM value, not BY value.  Since construction is not an 
> agent but a process, who or what is the constructive agent?   As an 
> MoQist, you will probably answer that Intellect is the agent.  And that's 
> precisely where the problem lies.  For "intellect" is not a disembodied 
> agency and "value" is not a universal principle.  Both are functions of 
> the individual observer.  In the absence of an observer, there is no value 
> realized and no intellect to configure it.

Greetings Ham,

Value IS a univeral principle.  I would state that objects are both 
conceptualized social and intellecutal patterns.  No, the intellect is not 
the agent AND it is not a disembodied agency.  _Action and agent are 
interdependent._  That is the Middle Way and corresponds to the MOQ's 
interaction of patterns.



>
> Back on July 7 you told me that "self is a collection of interrelated, 
> ever-changing,
> static patterns of inorganic, biological, social and intellectual values." 
> By that definition the self is a construction of its objective 
> experiences. Maybe that's literally how you view it.  In any event, it's 
> how Pirsig would like you to view it, since he seeks to "overcome" 
> selfness in the monistic existentiality of DQ.

There is no self (literally) and no objective experiences.  All is the 
interdependency of values.


>
> Here's where I part with the Quality thesis.  Individuality and 
> separateness are essential to value realization.  All experience is 
> proprietary to the self, selves are individuated from each other, and 
> experiential existence is a differentiated system.
> I'm quite aware that this is regarded as an unenlightened SOMist view. 
> But it is the reality human beings are designed to experience and 
> participate in.


Designed to experience?  I don't think so.  I would say evolved to 
experience?

I did use the phrase "designed by us", but I meant 'us' as an extension of a 
collection of interrelated, ever-changing, static patterns of inorganic, 
biological, social and intellectual values.


> Why?  Because (metaphysically) it is the only way value can be realized 
> relationally, and (morally) it affords the individual free choice, which 
> is the purpose of being-aware in a relational universe.

The Universe spins on inspite of our opinions of its rightness and 
wrongness.  Human morality seems to based on grasping, and it's not 
particularly pretty.



>
> But I don't stop here.  Unlike Pirsig, I don't exclude metaphysical 
> reality from this differentiated ontology.  I posit Essence as the 
> "unmoved mover" and primary source of all difference, and nothingness as 
> the actualizing agent of existence.

I think the interdepency of everything counters your "'ex nihilo' principle" 
and the need for a primary source.



  You and I are negated "others" of an absolute reality
> whose essential value absorbs us into its oneness.  Take hold of this 
> value, Marsha.  Seize the Essence!  It's all up for grabs in this process 
> we call the life-experience.

At the moment I'm thinking that awareness and compassion are more essential 
to a life of quality.


>
> Essentially yours,
> Ham
>


Have I told you lately that I love you,

Marsha