[MD] Thus spoke Lila

[118]

Hi Ham,

On Wed, Dec 8, 2010 at 10:54 PM, Ham Priday <hampday1 at verizon.net> wrote:

> Wise counsel I am sure, thank you, Mark.  Maybe it's that the word 'Quality'
> doesn't fill the bill as the Absolute Source.  (I mentally substituted
> 'Value' in that paragraph and it seemed more reasonable. . . except, of
> course, that Value isn't ultimate Reality, either.)

[Mark]
I'm not sure of the wisdom, the attempt is one of reconciliation.  As
humans, that which we envision has its roots beneath out intellect,
some kind of perennial thing maybe.  Perhaps the best truth is a
synthesis, searching for that fundament.  I will work on your Value
being my Quality, to see if I understand you better.
>
[Ham]>
> Not exactly.  We "differentiate" Value and create our reality
> experientially, as its 'essents'.  (This may be a communications snag in my
> exposition.)  It isn't that Value lacks reality or is non-essential.  Quite
> the contrary: Value, Sensibility, Order, Beauty, Intelligence, and Truth are
> all One in Essence.  But it takes a cognitive agent to distinguish these
> attributes and categorize them in a relational context.  That is "process",
> another attribute of the "differentiation category".

[Mark]
As I understand the essents you present, this may be akin to static
quality.  That is the shapes with meaning that we envision.  For
defined shapes to exist, there must be something separating them.
Perhaps this is Value.  We differentiate in a way that makes some
essents better than others.  The way we differentiate creates
categories which cannot be compared to each other (rocks and love for
example).  Although overriding categories can result in such
comparison sometimes.  It is this propensity for a relational context
that can be formulated as Quality.  We have engrained in our
interaction with the essents some fundamental attribute which in the
end is no different from the observed essents.  Matter interacting
with matter as it were.  One could perhaps say that this interaction
is Quality.  I choose that word, because it is what creates meaning
for me.  Without Quality, things would be meaningless.
>
>> [Mark before]
Horse's statement (cut) sounds more like a paradox to refute an
>> argument.  This was popular amongst the Sophists so he is certainly
>> in character for MOQ.  However, by saying something is undefinable
>> one is defining it as a category of thing.  We have the definable on
>> one side, and the ineffable on the other.
>
[Ham]
> Also, Horse was trying to position Intellect "outside the metaphysical
> system" for Marsha's edification, so my argument was an unwelcome intrusion.
> The "container"
> paradigm is unworkable as a metaphysical concept -- especially as
> "intellect" is not a
> universal attribute but only one aspect of the thought process.
> Understanding, recognition, comprehension, interpretation, evaluation, and
> analysis are some of the other intellectual functions.  The critical point,
> however, is that conscious awareness (sensibility) and the intellect by
> which it functions are proprietary to the individual self, an epistemology
> which Pirsigians refuse to acknowledge.

[Mark]
Yes, I suppose intellect could be one part.  I find it hard to
separate it from the rest, so this is a semantic issue.  I am fine
with your differentiation with various forms of sensibility.  We can
certainly confine intellect to symbol manipulation for the purposes of
communication.  However, the intellectual level can encompass all of
these forms you present.  I also get caught up in what the individual
self is, as you know, which may be an impediment to my understanding
of your ontology.
>
[Mark before]
>> For me, to say it is undefinable, means that we haven't tried hard
>> enough yet.  We make up Quality, and then can't define it (yet).
>> So here is where approximation comes into effect with the use of
>> analogies.  No analogy will be perfect, several are better than one,
>> and analogies can contradict other analogies.  There is no problem
>> with contradiction, since we are working outside the standard methods
>> of logic.  We have to.  Logic has a beginning, and expands from that.
>> What happens if the beginning cannot be encompassed by Truth?
>> Well that is where MOQ is.  Buddhism has plenty of analogies.
>
[Ham]
> Except for "defining the ineffable", which is--and I believe MUST
> remain--beyond man's capacity, what you say is very true.  Unfortunately,
> I'm not gifted in the art of creating analogies, and it has proved to be a
> handicap in communicating abtuse concepts.  I'll have to work on that
> shortcoming.
>
[Mark]
If you are pointing to ultimate ineffability we get stuck in a
paradox.  Our power of description grows as needed.  At one point, the
nature of the stars was ineffable.   We have now created words to
describe such in more complex ways.  Not that we have really gotten
anywhere fundamentally by doing so, except to create a larger
understanding.  It is this creation we are part of.  Breaking things
into components, relating components, predicting behavior, etc.  It is
all part of symbolism which is man's ability to shine like a sun.  At
every point we become stuck with the next ineffable.

[Mark before]
>> Everything in our creation has to start with an assumption.
>> You have made one with Absolute Essence.  I think that is great.
>> The point of a metaphysics is, what can it do for us?  If your
>> Essence provides great meaning for you, you have accomplished
>> your goal.  If others join you, even better since there is company
>> in numbers.  To try to pin one ontology down as more correct
>> is a personal experience.
>
[Ham]
> For as long as I can remember, I've sought a plausible theory (ontology) of
> existence that would satisfy me.  I learned a bit from Theism, Platonism,
> Pantheism, Mysticism, Spiritualism, Existentialism, and Objectivism; but
> they all fell short of fulfilling my need.  So I resorted to my own devices:
> intuition and logic, plus some gems of wisdom from gnostics like Eckhart and
> Cusanus.  I hit upon Value first, at about the time I became acquainted with
> Pirsig's Quality.  The ontogeny of differentiation came later. Currently
> I've been refining what might be called the "dynamics of Value", but the
> overall cosmology is irrevocable insofar as my own beliefs are concerned.

[Mark]
I think I work the same way as you.  My intuition chooses what I want
to read and add to my understanding.  I can't explain it any other
way.  There is way too much to read, all of which could be meaningful.
 So I head off on a "chosen" path and work from there.  I don't think
I am quite where you are yet, I am still quite scattered, and ultimate
meaning is still in progress.  Perhaps the progress itself is all I
can ask for.  Might get bored otherwise.
>
[Ham]
> Truth is relative to the individual; so you're right that the "correct
> ontology" is the one pinned down from personal experience.  Whether
> Essentialism can satisfy others will depend on several factors that have
> become clear from my participation in this forum.  The greatest impediment I
> face is the anti-spiritual bias of a society that is in rebellion against
> religion and confuses Essence with theism.  Although the MoQ is also a
> valuistic philosophy, the Quality posited by its author is both "agent" and
> "creator",  affording man about as much freedom as the mushrooms attached to
> our maple tree.  If the existence of one's "self" is in doubt and intellect
> is an unrealized variant of universal Quality, how can we possibly nurture
> the core values that give meaning and purpose to our life experience?
> Indeed, why SHOULD we?

[Mark]
Yes, spiritualism is placed into some kind of box.  The problem there
is that many have not regarded what we do as spiritualism.  Rational
logic is elevated to something else.  The dogma of religion certainly
doesn't help this, and the history of such through the tyrannical
rulers that came around is quite disturbing.  I do not like religion
as it is forced.  I didn't grow up in any kind of religion, so perhaps
I do not have an emotional response.  There seems to be a sense of not
believing in things unless there are a lot of "explanatory" words
associated.  Everything is ultimately ineffable, some are more
comfortable with this than others, and are more spiritually inclined.
>
[Ham]
> On the positive side, and perhaps partly due to the contributions of
> free-thinkers such as yourself, I see more tolerance toward ideas that
> complement and shape, rather than attack, Pirsig's valuistic insights.
> Instead of a predisposition against the spiritual and aesthetic aspects of
> Quality (Value), Tim, John, Platt, Craig and others are increasingly
> accepting the idea that value realization is psycho-emotional as well as
> intellectual.  This trend is as helpful to me as it is to RMP.

[Mark]
By partitioning awareness with all these psychological terms, we end
up with confusion which then allows discussion.  Psycho-emotional as
opposed to intellectual is one such case.  For many the emotional is
at a lower level and not as impressive.  The way I see it, the
intellect arises out of these deeper stuctures, and cannot be
dismissed as anything less than essential and critical.
>
Thanks to you Ham, I learn a lot.

Mark
>
>
>
>
> 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/md/archives.html
>