[MD] The Dynamics of Value

[Ham Priday]

On Oct. 26 at 10:30 AM, Andre asked Alex:


> Can you tell me /A what lies 'outside' the MOQ?  What do you mean
> when you and Ham 'consider the MOQ in a wider context'? What 'reality' are 
> you referring to that lies outside of experience? Is there something you 
> are referring to that lies outside of cosmological
> evolution?  If so, I am very interested to hear.

Even "cosmological evolution" is subject to the ex nililo principle, Andre. 
It doesn't arise from nothing.
Prsig has presented us with an ontology of Quality grounded in experience. 
The MoQ is a paradigm for the experiential world of existence, not 
metaphysical reality.  Even though it doesn't acknowledge subjects and 
objects as anything but "patterns of Quality", the existence of Quality (or 
Value) itself requires the realization of an observer.  And that presupposes 
a primary source that transcends both objective otherness and 
value-sensibility.

> Have you achieved a way of arriving at 'concepts' without experience? Have 
> you arrived at concepts that have no value? Do you have any examples
> you'd like to share with us?

Metaphysical concepts are "intuitive" inights formulated logically, hence do 
not require experience or empirical knowledge.  If a concept has no value it 
is not worth positing.  A cosmology that neglects the source of value is 
incomplete, in my opinion.  Essentialism posits Absolute Essence as the 
metaphysical source of all value.  But neither Value nor the Sensibility 
which realizes it is differentiated in Essence.

> It seems to me that when you say 'MOQ just considers experience', with 
> your use of the term 'just' you are wiping out Pirsig's intention and
> achievement and completely misunderstand the MOQ.  I really wonder
> what you are looking for here on this discuss.

When Pirsig says "experience is the cutting edge of reality" and DQ is its 
source, he is effectively limiting his thesis to experiential (i.e., 
existential) reality.  Adding the terms "static" and "dynamic" to acommodate 
"patterns" and "levels", respectively, is an artificial construct intended 
to replace a transcendent creator or source.  But there is no logical or 
metaphysical justification for this terminology, nor does it produce two 
kinds of Quality.  An absolute source avoids the need for such conceptual 
bifurcation.  All value is realized relationally (existentially); but its 
ultimate source is the Oneness of Essence.

Until you see the value of an absolute ontology, you are stuck with 
empirical formulations that apply only to the relations and dynamics of 
finite phenomena.  In other words, you remain an objectivist in a world of 
appearances that has no originating source.

Essentially speaking,
Ham