[MD] atheistic and content

[Ham Priday]

Greetings, Gav --


> hi ham.
>
> 'To evaluate something as good or bad requires a cognitive subject,
> yet Pirsig denies a subjective agent as anything but a "pattern of
> Quality".  Obviously, this is an epistemological paradox, for we
> can't appreciate (have an affinity for) value if it is the very nature
> of our being.'
>
> I like the rest of your post but I have probs with this part.
> Cognition reflects upon the immediate sensing of value - and then
> they can def play a sort of feedback loop game.
>
> Both the subject and object are abstracted from immediate flux -
> the perpetual becoming of time.

I agree that cognition (awareness) is the result of value-sensibility, and 
that intellection and associative memory recall (feedback loop?) convert 
experience into intelligent knowledge.  So I don't see your problem with 
what I've asserted, Gav.

The point of my statement (which you seem to have glossed over) is that 
Value is our affinity for "otherness" -- the being of which our experiential 
existence is constructed.  One does not value he already has.  The core self 
is Sensibility, not Value or Quality. If Value (Quality) were our essential 
nature, there would be no longing or desire to possess it, and value would 
be non-existent and meaningless.

> What is becoming - from whence the flux? Well it is outside of time
> and space, although not really 'outside' - for there is no outside
> (or whence), outside requires the context of space (whence, of time)
> we need to give some poetic license when we start speculating
> on these things.

Poetic license aside, becoming cannot be outside of time and space, since 
"being" itself is demensional.  Take away space/time and there is no being. 
"Becoming" is the process whereby relational existence occurs (or is 
perceived).  As human beings, you and I are sensible agents "becoming" aware 
of otherness.  What we value of this otherness is experienced as "being". 
Thus, our organic bodies are experienced as the proprietary locus of our 
reality, while the external objects of our experience represent the range of 
our value-sensibility as relational 'beingness'.  The sum total of our life 
experience represents our individual value quotient or complement.  This 
isn't meant to be poetry, it's ontology.

[snip]

> Perhaps a shortcoming of the word 'quality' is that it is quite dry.
> It hasn't the deep emotional connotation of 'love' for instance; perhaps
> that is why Pirsig and dmb and others eschew this 'romantic' dimension,
> which religion often likes to explore - again Jesus was pretty big on it -
> and the Beatles.
>
> Love and faith and a lot more joy - whatever is conducive to that,
> that's where I'll hang my intellectual hat.

Belief, yes (if you're talking about intellect), although I'm not sure about 
"faith".  Love. longing and desire express our affinity for that which we 
value but are lacking.  The world of beingness encompasses the full gamut of 
our sensibility -- the sublime and the mundane, the good and the bad, the 
beauty and the beastly.  We sense Value and experience it discretely and 
relationally.  But the ultimate referent to all "experienced" value is the 
uncreated Source of relational existence.  For want of a better term, I call 
this absolute source Essence.

As for Bohm, Castenada, et al, they all have their special terms and 
definitions and can be interpreted accordingly.  However, I think it's 
unproductive (and unfair to the authors) when we try to merge one theory 
with another in the attempt to "reconcile" their respective views.  That's 
why the only philosopher I'll deal with in this way is RMP.  And, needless 
to say, I haven't had much success in that regard.

Thanks for your insights, Gav.  Despite your dislike of capital letters, you 
manage to put a fresh new perspective on many issues discussed here.

Best regards,
Ham