[MD] Is Quality Different from (Mother) Nature?

[Ham Priday]

Hi Mark --


> Hi Ham,
> Yes, I was off topic there. I was speaking of the paranormal.
> However, there is [no?] way to much dispute about something
> that current science can't measure. There are a number of
> credible research institutes studying this, but it is really a topic
> for another forum. ...

Science should not be regarded as a foundation for Philosophy.  The 
empirical world and its dynamics are by practical necessity designed to 
conform with cause-and-effect and the relational principles of logic. 
Whether transcendental concepts like metaphysical reality are "a topic for 
another forum" or not, they are the heart of Philosophy.

> My point is that if different levels have their own consciousness,
> then it is possible for that to envelop individuals.  In my opinion,
> there is no possible way that our sensibilities are confined to our
> bodies. But, like I said, not appropriate for this forum.
> Let's talk politics...

If you really think politics are a proper topic for a philosophical forum, 
you should be talking to Arlo, Platt, or Andre.

> I believe that Quality does transcend existence. Existence is simply
> an expression of Quality. Similar to a painting being an expression of
> the artist. You can replace the word Quality with a number of words
> used for this kind of thing, such as prime essence.

Okay, let's use "prime essence".  I prefer it to "quality" which doesn't 
exist until it is realized and measured.   What is Quality without an 
observer?  Do you suppose the "quality" of the Mona Lisa exists on the 
canvas independently of an observer?   Would be there if there were no one 
around to admire it?  Would Nature or the physical universe realize it?

Awareness of value, excellence, beauty or quality (and their counterparts) 
is a sensibility of the human being whose experience is 'the measure of all 
things'.  The human body and its neuro-sensory system are the biological 
"instrument" of sensibility.  But the Value of which it is sensible comes 
from the prime essence.  This is what Science, with all its investigative 
resources, is unable to discover.  It is not something you can research and 
confirm from empirical evidence.

Best regards,
Ham

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

> Thanks for that post. Not to get to far away from this forum,
> but there is a definite overlap of sensibility. That is, it is not
> confined to the lonely individual. There may be actual feeling of
> a societal consciousness, or at least a pairing consciousness.
> How this is actually transferred from one person to another, such
> as the feeling of love or of fear, is hard to detect in physical terms,
> that is scientifically. However, I would have to assume that each cell
> in our bodies actually senses the overall consciousness of our entire
> selves (this is more than the intellectual brain of course). In fact,
> because of this conscious overlap cells can sense damage at a far
> region of the body before there is time for biochemical communication.
>
> In the same way, sensibility can be transferred between people at
> rates faster than the speed of light, in fact instantaneously. This is
> because they overlap. It is in this way, that I understand the levels
> of MoQ. Each one creates a higher consciousness. It would seem
> to me that Value sensibility is a shared phenomenon as well as a
> lonely individual one. Again, this is not through communication or
> particle exchange in anyway, but simply through connection by
> an overriding consciousness.

With all due respect, Mark, I think you're straining too hard to accommodate
the MoQ hierarchy. Nothing in D'Souza's essay endorses a multi-level value
system or a collective conscience. The author only suggests a sensibility 
that
"transcends the physical". To me, this defines the individual's sensibility
to Value.

Why do you say there's "a definite overlap of sensibility"? Two lovers
share the passion of a relationship but not their individual sensibilities.
Two gourmets may enjoy an entree of their choosing, but the flavors and
succulence of the dish are experienced (sensed) individually. Sensibility
is patently subjective; there is no such thing as collective consciousness.
There is only correspondent behavior to a common stumulus. The feelings,
the values, the satisfactions, and the very apprehension of the stimulus are
experiences of the individual subject.

It is axiomatic that social values like Freedom, Justice, and Compassion are
universally appreciated, which is the basis of morality. But societal
values reflect the value-sensibility of the individual members. Sensibility
is proprietary to the cognizant subject. Any "overlapping of sensibility"
is a behavioral (objective) response, not a subjective aggregate or
collection. To view value-sensibility as an aspect of some collective
consciousness is to misconstrue the dynamics of epistemology.

I maintain that consciousness reaches its highest level in human beings,
that it is a process which encompasses feeling, emotion, experience,
apprehension, intellection, and conceptualization. No two individuals share
in these subjective functions, except as they respond with similar behavior.
I know this is promoting an SOMist position in this forum. But inasmuch as
the Quality hierarchy never transcends existence, Pirsig is describing the
empirical world in which the mode of experience is awareness of being. That
experience is subjective, and the being of this world is the individual's
experiential construct of sensed value.

> For some reason, your post brought that out of me. Go figure,
> stream of consciousness. Probably doesn't make sense. And
> certainly not very scientific or philosophical. Perhaps deeper.

Indeed, Value goes very deep. For me it is the creative power of Essence.
But any "stream of consciousness" is differentiated and relative to the
individuated Self. If the world were not constructed in this way, there
would be no realized value, no experienced phenomena, nor a free agent to
choose among them.

Essentially speaking,
Ham