[MD] Thus spoke Lila

[118]

Hi Ham,

On Thu, Dec 9, 2010 at 9:59 PM, Ham Priday <hampday1 at verizon.net> wrote:
> Good evening, Mark --
>
[Mark before]
Without Quality, things would be meaningless.
>
> [Ham]
Would you have chosen that word had you not familiarized yourself with the
> MoQ?

[Mark]
Hard to say, I read ZMM back in 1974.  I was reading a lot of books on
Eastern philosophy, and other stuff at the time.  Another book which I
read just previously was called The Crack in the Cosmic Egg, by J.C.
Pierce.  This was interesting as well.  I was mainly caught up in
Taoism as I recall.  When ZMM came out, it captured the imagination of
a lot of us, and we discussed it quite a bit.  I know I was looking
for something.  Probably something else would have worked just as
well.  MOQ and Lila came out quite a bit later.  I was a bit
disappointed with the direction Pirsig chose, but I have done my best
to fit it in.  Some of the old magic is still in Lila.  I have to
accept it as an attempt at a description of what he saw in the '60s,
and Pirsig had a lot of fans who needed to be satisfied.  I don't envy
him, I don't think I would have written another book, but who knows
what destiny calls.
>
[Ham]
> There is nothing "static" about the quality (value) we experience as
> essents.  As I mentioned before, it is the dynamic nature of human
> sensibility that enables us to objectify Value.  'Essent-value' is
> experiential; that is, it's the incrementally perceived value of essents
> evolving and developing over time.  What is "ingrained" in us is
> value-sensibility (what Pirsig calls "pre-intellectual experience").  Except
> that each and every experience is perceived to have its own value relative
> to everything else.  Rather than "matter interacting with matter," it's
> Essential Value differentiated by experience to create finite relational
> 'beingness' (essents).

[Mark]
I think I understand this, this is why my previous analogy described
it as a flow from essence to essence.  That flow just happens to go
through us.  I have a hard time with the biological model of being
engrained, even though I am a biologist.  There is no way we are
separate from the biology, so what is ingrained is what we are,
nothing more nothing less, the sum total, the whole enchilada.  We
cannot experience the human condition without our bodies.  The "We"
that I use is the experiencer.  The vehicle is the body.  Yea, I know,
we can't measure the experiencer, at least not yet, so we need some
metaphysics.

But I do understand what you are saying.  When as the experiencer we
come in contact with an apple, the value flows through us which allows
the differentiation and recognition of the apple.  Of course this
happens with every fiber of our body and so it is quite complex and
busy, so this is an extreme simplification.
>
[Snap]

[Ham]
> The individual self is nothing but sensibility in want of Value. Proprietary
> selfness is a negation of Essence.  That's why the term 'negate' is
> appropriate.  Selfness is divided from Essence by nothingness, just as
> Sensibility is divided from Beingness by nothingness.  The nothingness that
> separates all existents is the common denominator of the differentiated
> world.  I don't know how to formulate this as an equation, except to say
> that Nothingness represents the primary negation whereby Sensibility is
> "excluded" from Essence to actualize existence.

[Mark]
Is there another word for Nothingness?   Because where this takes me
logically is that nothing is separating.  Can't we just be something
separated from something else?  Right now I am imagining a veil or
something.  Perhaps this is because I am caught up in the Qabalah, and
they use veils.  I am also still caught up in my previous analogy of
us being a pipe which channels Value.  This channeling creates other
and returns its essence to the absolute.  Like a wind tunnel or
something.  As it blows we feel alive.  We are kind of a vacuum
waiting to be continually filled.  This correlates with my scientific
understanding of the flow of electrons from high potential to low
potential ending up on oxygen to form water.
>
[Ham, after some snipping]
> Yes, as much as we try, it is not possible for man to comprehend reality
> holistically.
> But that's to man's benefit, because to do so would prevent him from
> realizing value from the relational perspective.  By the same token, if man
> had access to absolute Truth, he would be denied the capacity to exercise
> the free choice necessary to become a moral creature.  (This is the
> principle that Pirsig's "universal morality" misses.)

[Mark]
I do not like the notion of Absolute Truth as something that really
exists, unless everything is absolute Truth, and that would make it
meaningless since there would not be any falseness.  I am not much one
who thinks of a loving God.  It just doesn't make sense to me.  I
envision Pirsig's universal morality more as a driving force than
actually existing as a tendency.  One does not have to choose morality
if one doesn't want to, but there are all sorts of biological issues
that arise, such as regret or shame.  Still, nothing that a good drink
won't fix.  There is lots of trial and error in morality.
>
>
> Don't become discouraged, Mark.  I have noted much progress in your
> understanding of Essence qua Quality.  In fact, I've seen indications that
> you have begun to realize that Quality (Value) by itself cannot be the
> Absolute Source.  Is my optimism unfounded, or is Essentialism actually
> beginning to make some sense?

[Mark]
Well, I don't know if I have changed my attitude about Quality.
Perhaps I have, and that would mean growth.  So, at this point I still
see Quality as that which separates, but I am willing to say that it
is not everything, because as you say, something has to realize that
separation.  I also do not see Quality as some kind of God who is
presenting us with two options and having us choose (right door,
straight to Heaven, left door, well that is just your bad luck, chum)

How does the relativity of Value fit into your ontology?  That is, is
there any significance to our ability to know what is better?  Is that
betterness part of our make up, or does it come from outside and is
presented to us?  Why do we differentiate differently?  Hope my
question is clear, 'cause it doesn't seem to make much sense to me the
way I have written it.  Anyway, if not, I'll think of another way to
ask the question.
>
[Ham]
> Anyway, thanks for hanging in there with me.
>
Hey, no problem, this is fun.

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
>