[MD] The Dynamics of Value

[Andre Broersen]

Ham to Andre:

Even "cosmological evolution" is subject to the ex nililo principle, Andre.
It doesn't arise from nothing.

Andre:
Correct Ham, it 'arises' from nothing.

Ham:
The MoQ is a paradigm for the experiential world of existence, not metaphysical reality.

Andre:
The moq is a static intellectual pattern of value. Its claims are provisional.

Ham:
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.

Andre:
Ham, we (and others) have gone over this ground before. The 'observer' 'arises' or 'emerges' with the observed, just as the 'knower' arises or emerges with that being known. The Quality event 'makes' this possible.

Ham:
Metaphysical concepts are "intuitive" inights formulated logically, hence do
not require experience or empirical knowledge.

Andre:
I like this one. Is 'intuition' not classified as experience? Mr. Pirsig likened the 'intuitive experience' to DQ out of which arise 'metaphysical concepts'. 'Value is at the very front of the empirical procession'.(LILA,p372)
Radical empiricism allows for 'illogical' formulations.( i.e. formulations that do not follow the conventionally accepted procedures of logic...which I liken, amongst other things to 'common sense' stuff)

Ham:
Adding the terms "static" and "dynamic" to acommodate "patterns" and "levels", respectively, is an artificial construct intended to replace a transcendent creator or source.

Andre:
I do not follow this Ham. ZMM is the (inductive) recovery of Quality (DQ in LILA)as the oldest idea in the world.LILA is the deductive extrapolation of this Quality idea (sq). There is nothing 'artificial' about this...and here is why:

Two further observations which I find interesting. The MOQ has a close 'allegiance' with William James ( his radical empiricism and his pragmatism).James always disliked the 'in the beginning was the Word' observation. For him, and I strongly believe that the MOQ agrees, it should be reformulated as 'in the beginning was the deed', i.e. the action, the experience.

Secondly James (as well as Pirsig) suggested that radical empiricism includes all that can be experienced but excludes all that is not.

I therefore suggest to exclude a 'transcendent creator or source'. 'Quality is the continuing stimulus which our environment puts upon us to create the world in which we live. All of it. Every last bit of it'!(Zmm,p245)Man is the measure...the participant.
It irks me that Siddharta Gautama realized this more than 2500 years ago and you still do not.

Ham:
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.

Andre:
Well, I do not see the value of an ontology seeking to find all sorts of incredible formulations to forcefully arrive at a 'complete'(using your own words) metaphysics such as Absolutism ( as an exercise in deliberately unifying things into a 'ONE' which, in the end, is artificial and forced)  whether this be Kant, Hegel, Royce (and many others) or your Essence.

If you think that this leads me to being an 'objectivist' that is fine. 'I' consider my self part of the 'appearances' (from a dynamic point of view).