[MD] The Dynamics of Value

[Ham Priday]

Hi Alex, Mark, Andre [Adrie mentioned] --

You three are coming at this concept from different vantage points, so it's 
hard to follow the discussion.

For example, Mark has introduced a "holographic universe" (projection?) 
which I don't see as relevant here, while Andre holds to the MoQ position 
that "experience is the starting point" (of creation?) which misrepresents 
my ontology.  Now Alex is referring to something called "maps", which I 
assume is an allegorical or paradigmatic approach to understanding the 
indescribable Source.


[Mark to Andre]:
> If we are talking about the beginning in terms of universe creation (as 
> the Word implies), then I have the following question: Does MOQ 
> necessarily need a beginning to function.  Are the same premises valid
> in a universe that has always existed and is changing (the Static Universe
> model)?

My simple answer is Yes.  Whether the universe evolved from primordeal 
matter or energy that "always existed" or was spontaneously created by a Big 
Bang makes no difference insofar as the Primary Source is concerned.  The 
appearance of an "ordered system" is not something that begets itself at 
some point in time, but is a constant attribute of essential value that 
makes experiential reality possible.  (Maybe this is a constant you can use 
in your project, Mark.)

In this connection, I was appalled by Adrie's trite response to my 
suggestion that one who doesn't acknowledge an absolute ontology remains "an 
objectivist in a world of appearances that has no originating source":

[Adrie]:
> Nope, the originating source is not there anymore, it left, along with 
> history.

I trust you gentlemen to realize that neither creation nor its history has 
"left us", but that the continuous stream of events is man's perspective of 
existential reality.

[Andre]:
> 'In the MOQ, nothing exists prior to the observation. The observation 
> creates the patterns called 'observed' and 'observer'. Think about it. How 
> could a subject and object exist in a world where there are no 
> observations?' (Annotn 65).

I can accept "observation" as a synonym for "experience" in delineating or 
actualizing essents (objects).
However, I cannot comprehend how observation can occur without an 
"observer".  For me, the cognizant observer is proprietary value-sensibility 
that is innate in each embodied self.

[Andre continues]:
> Notice here that Pirsig does not ask how there can be an observer without 
> anything being observed (as Ham does) or, for that matter how there can be 
> anything thing to be observed without an observer (this would set up a 
> contradiction in terms because it would beg the question).
>
> The MOQ starts with sentience and in this sense it would agree with 
> Siddhartha Gautama, be silent on 'beginnings'. The MOQ accepts the
> idea of a 'big bang' beginning. It accepts this as a high quality 
> intellectual pattern of value but, of course is provisional.

I'm not qualified to pass judgment on the "quality" of the 'big bang' 
theory, other than that cause-and-effect, like past-and-future, is an 
intellectual precept derived from the temporal mode of human experience. 
>From the metaphysical perspective of Essence, cause and effect are equated 
in potentiality and there is no history.

Thanks for all your contributions.

Essentially yours,
Ham