[MD] Quick one: causation

[X Acto]

Ham,
I think there are many definitions of value, which is why Pirsig broke it up into 4 catagories.
You seem to be taking the biological context of the meaning of the word to mean what
is implied as inorganic value, which is another context alltogether. In this meaning,
inorganic value has a more mathematic context of magnitude; quantity, force.
Some medium of exchange.

Context my freinds, right here in river city. Don't leave home without it.

The universe is composed of value, but it's meaning is contextual. As you rightly
posit.

Thanks Ham
-Ron


 



________________________________
From: Ham Priday <hampday1 at verizon.net>
To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
Sent: Tuesday, January 13, 2009 11:50:40 PM
Subject: Re: [MD] Quick one: causation

Craig --

> Pirsig has developed a more unified theory: iron filings
> prefer movement towards a magnet in the way inorganic
> things prefer; a heliotropic plant prefers movement toward
> the sun in the way biological things do; people prefer
> success to failure in the way people do.

I am well aware of Pirsig's value theory, and can understand why he resorted to it as the basis for his Quality hierarchy.

However, it is one thing to "unify a theory", but quite another to validate it or gain acceptance for it.  Extending value preferences to inanimate objects is a regression to animism that has no biological or scientific support.  As Arlo, Chris, Krimel, and other nihilists have pointed out, "accident" or probability carried to infinity can logically be thought to account for any result.  Teleology, the doctrine that ends are immanent in nature (the "final cause"), continues to be an argument for intelligent design.  These explanations are logically plausible because they do not involve volition or proprietary sensibility on the part of inorganic matter.

I stand by my assertion that unrealized value is an epistemological absurdity.  Without a sensible agent to realize it there is no value.  You may argue that plants, which depend on photo-synthesis for growth, bend toward the sun by some internal mechanism that "favors" solar energy.  But you can't make this argument for falling objects that are pulled to the earth by gravity or iron filings that are drawn to a magnet by electro-mechanical force.

Thanks for the clarification, Craig.

Regards,
Ham

Moq_Discuss mailing list
Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
Archives:
http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/