[MD] the meaning Hobbes's meaning

[Michael Poloukhine]

> Ham said:
> To posit Quality or Value as independent of sensibility, let alone the
> primary force of the universe, is an absurdity.

MP: This caught my eye. Ham this is a little like saying electricity does not exist 
if there is no resistor to tap the current. And in many ways that is a true 
statement, depending on your definition (word weasle alert) of electricity. But 
we all know electricity "exists" in the socket. While the socket just sits there, its 
arguable there is no electricity "in" it. But does that apparent "lack" of electricity 
in any way make us less apt to grab a child considering sticking in a fork?

Is "electricity" just the flow or does it include the potential for flow?

(One can make similar discussion using magnetism as an analog.)

I was reading a little Schopenhauer the other day (I'm better now, thanks) and it 
occurred to me that his approach to "will" is very similar to Pirsig's contention of 
Quality underlying all patterns with one major, fundamentally transformative 
distinction. Schopenhauer's reality boils down to being an infinite, flat 
featureless plane in which our "will" operates "willy nilly" with no guide but our 
own. Pirsig's is the same thing ... but with a slope. Its nearly identical, but it has 
direction. It has potential. And this slope completely alters the perception of 
reality and how our S'ian "will" operates within it. 

So ... back to your statement above, yes... in a way Quality or Value, 
independent of sensibility by a sensing agent is meaningless.  But they *can* 
still be there independently as a potential for sensibility. Even without a sensible 
agent, the *potential* for sensibility remains, and that makes *all* the difference. 
It doesn't "exist" per se, and as you say is meaningless in reality absent 
sensibility. But its still there, and where we have the sensibility to appreciate it, it 
comes alive as a flow in patterned reality.

MP
----
"Don't believe everything you think."