[MD] Wanted: A proper foundation

[MarshaV]

At 04:54 PM 1/27/2009, you wrote:
>Marsha --
>
>
>At 05:12 AM 1/27/2009, you wrote:
>
>>I agree with Bo that the levels are important and that the MOQ 
>>perspective is above the level hierarchy.  But I think a stronger 
>>impact can be made from understanding the nature of the patterns
>>that inhabit the levels.  So here I agree with you.  Once the nature
>>of the patterns is understood, the usefulness of the level 
>>structure becomes obvious.  I am concerned that the patterns are 
>>seen as independent (inherently existing) entities, just a new name 
>>for objects. This I think is the wrong view. RMP has stated that 
>>there are no thing-in-themselves in the MOQ, and he has mentioned 
>>Buddhism and emptiness, though he has not stated my interpretation
>>directly.
>
>So much of Pirsig's language is ambiguous that I sometimes suspect 
>it gets in the way of our understanding.

Analogues upon analogues upon analogues...  I think RMP was trying to 
get us to the experience.


>  You talk about the possibility of MoQ having a stronger impact by 
> our "understanding the nature of the patterns that inhabit the 
> levels."  What, exactly, is a "level" if not an intellectual pattern?

Right.  I agree.  A level is an intellectual pattern.


>If a tree is a pattern, why isn't the biological process that 
>produces it also a pattern?  If a leaf that grows on the tree limb 
>is a pattern, why isn't the photo-synthesis by which it is sustained 
>not a pattern?

All patterns.  Again, "analogues upon analogues upon analogues."


>   Indeed, the nature of the earth -- its rocks and trees and living 
> organisms -- is "goal-directed process".

Towards freedom, spontaneity, dynamic quality.


>  What survives and remains of this process (at least long enough to 
> be recognized and identified) is what you're calling a "pattern".

It may be integrated into an existing pattern, or form a new pattern.


>What perishes or never assumes physical form is past history or 
>unrecognized phenomena.

That's it.

This is my interpretation/understanding/analogue.  I cannot channel 
RMP's mind to know for sure if it is as he intended.



>[Ham, previously]:
>>If Quality is ultimately "dynamic", why do we experience its 
>>patterns as "static"?
>
>[Marsha]:
>>To create a sense of stability where one cannot be assured.   It 
>>works most of the time, because we define the rules so we can play 
>>the game successfully.  The rules are defined to our 
>>specification.  If they work they become a pattern.  If they don't 
>>work or lose their functionality, they slide into oblivion (or 
>>history).  This is my interpretation.
>
>Since we can be aware of only a minute fraction of what goes on in 
>the universe, we look for relatively "stable episodes" in this 
>emerging process and ignore the rest.  Stability, like symmetry and 
>intellectual comprehensibility, has value to us.

Yes, this is how I understand it.


>Your revered author once wrote: "A thing that has no value does not 
>exist."  He's touching on epistemology here -- how we acquire 
>knowledge; but he leaves this important topic undeveloped.  I would 
>suggest that "patterns" are stabilized forms of "otherness" which 
>are selectively valued and added to our knowledge.  They may be 
>objects, processes, principles, or categories, depending on your 
>intellectual or aesthetic sensibility.

The dichotomy of self and other needs to go.  The is a constellation 
of patterns.  The self is an ever-changing, collection of 
interrelated and interconnected, inorganic, biological, social and 
intellectual, static patterns of value responding to Dynamic Quality 
.   If by 'aesthetic sensibility' you mean 'valuing experience', I agree.



>>A pattern seems to be a static-making mechanism.  A tree, for 
>>instance, has a long process of growth with many attributes and 
>>aggregates.  While a static pattern of 'tree' will differ from 
>>person to person depending on past experience, on the most 
>>superficial level there is shared pattern of what is a tree.  And 
>>on a superficial level we just overlay this basic shared pattern of 
>>tree onto our experiencing a tree.  We impose the finite where none 
>>exist.  Am I making sense?
>
>That, I believe, is how an SOMist might explain patterning, except 
>that instead of defining the source of the pattern as "otherness", 
>he/she would refer to it as Quality (an MoQ synonym for 
>Value).  And, although Pirsig doesn't say so, the SOMist would 
>probably regard Value as something outside of (external to) his/her 
>subjective awareness.  In other words, the epistemology of SOM is 
>that knowledge is acquired by the subject from objective value.  RMP 
>would argue that there is no subject or object, but that they are 
>both patterns of Quality (Value).

Otherness and selfness are mistaken identity.  There are only 
ever-changing, interrelated and interconnected, inorganic, 
biological, social and intellectual, static patterns of value 
responding to Dynamic Quality.  A pattern creates an independent self 
upon the process valuing, but it is just a mistaken pattern.



>Now, I've been accused of unenlightened SOMism because I acknowledge 
>the subject/object division of existence.

I'll acknowledge it too, but as conventional existence, not inherent 
existence.


>Yet, Essentialism is a valuistic philosophy.  The difference is that 
>my ontology has a metaphysical foundation.  Like Lincoln said on the 
>eve of the Civil War, "A house divided against itself cannot stand", 
>I maintain that a divided ontology does not meet the test of 
>Reality.  To put it simply, existence is not ultimate reality.

Conventional reality is not ultimate reality, but maybe it is that 
they are mutually interdependent.


>   The self/other division that accounts for appearance is only a 
> differentiated image of its absolute source.  What Pirsig calls 
> "pre-intellectual experience" is not experience but value-sensibility.

RMP has indicated that he considers value and experience to be synonyms.


>Experience is the psycho-emotional-intellectual process of 
>differentiating Value into a world of finite beingness.

Valuing forms patterns.  Is that what you are saying?


>Individuated sensibility is the cognizant locus of that world, and 
>each of us is a participant in actualizing it.

As a collection of patterns interacting with Dynamic Quality we are 
the process.



>[Ham]:
>>And can you give me an example of what you call a Dynamic Quality 
>>experience?  (Kindly avoid Pirg's infamous "hot seat" analogy.)
>
>[Marsha]:
>>A dynamic experience is one without thought.  You are experiencing 
>>and reacting without thinking.  I don't know what else to 
>>say.  I've had brief little moments in all kind of everyday 
>>occurrences.  It's without analysis.  It's spontaneous.  More 
>>likely when I paint, but once while driving on a curvy, country 
>>road.  It was incredible.  But these are a few moments, not a steady stream.
>
>Moments of epiphany are rare, indeed; but I submit that 
>value-sensibility is much less esoteric than the example you've provided.

You asked for an example of a DQ experience.  This one was easily 
identified as such.  I might have given my one and only freefall.  It 
WAS mindblowing...  But of course, dynamic quality is a aspect of all 
experience.


>   As a painter dipping into your palette, don't the pigments 
> individually have value for you?  When I look at a high-definition 
> picture on a flat-panel screen, I'm aware of my sensibility to 
> color.  Platt has often spoken of his sensibility to beauty in 
> works of art.  There are passages in the music of Liszt, Wagner, 
> and Tchaikovsky that literally mesmerize me.  Surely such 
> "responses to" value are common experience for those who have 
> nurtured their aesthetic sensibilities.  What we don't realize is 
> that ALL of our experiences, whether aesthetic, physical, 
> intellectual or social, are value-based.

I agree.


>Isn't that what Pirsig was getting at when he likened experience to 
>the "cutting edge of reality"?

I'm not sure.  Most experience is outside awareness, just patterns 
repeating automatically.  I think that cutting edge can be broadened 
and cultivated with awareness and attention.   Meditation would be my 
recommendation, but sometimes dancing does the trick.



>Human beings exist on the periphery of Essence, sensible only to its 
>value. Everything else is an objective representation of that 
>value.  Anyway, that's my epistemology.  I've been somewhat 
>long-winded here, but hopefully it will help explain not only what 
>"makes Ham tick" but why Value figures so prominently in my 
>Philosophy of Essence.

Putting aside the use of different analogues, there seems to be many 
areas where we share the same understanding.

Thank you for the opportunity to respond.


>Essentially yours,
>Ham
>

Valuistically yours,
Marsha




.
_____________

Look, there's no metaphysics on earth like chocolates.
(Fernando Pessoa)
.
.