[MD] Tit's

[MarshaV]

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "MarshaV" <marshalz at charter.net>
To: <moq_discuss at moqtalk.org>
Sent: Monday, July 28, 2008 3:03 AM
Subject: Re: [MD] Tit's


>
> ----- 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.

-------------- previous paragraph rewritten-----------------

Value IS the universal principle.  All objects (spovs) are concepts. 
Intellect is not the agent AND not a disembodied agency.  Intellect and 
agent are not separate, but interdependent.  Conceptually constructed 
through interdependent relationship.  That is the Middle Way, and 
corresponds to the MOQ's interaction of patterns with DQ.

--------------------------------------------------------------

And again, the interdepency of everything counters your "'ex nihilo' 
principle".

Does this make more sense????????




>>
>> 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
>
>