[MD] Quality and the Higgs Field: An Analogy

[Ham Priday]

Hi John --


[Ham to Mark on Mon, Feb 7, 2011 at 3:19 PM]:

> Your arguments all seem to hang on the notion that morality
> is intrinsic to the universe.  Since I believe that man actualizes
> the universe from Value, I find it difficult to respond to your
> comments in a way that makes sense to you.

[John jumps in]:
> Likewise, I'm sure.  I'm having a very difficult time with
> conveying the idea that man is intrinsic to the universe...
> value is intrinsic to man, therefore value must be intrinsic
> to the universe.  How can something that seems so simple
> to me (and Mark has made the same point) be such a
> source of confusion?

Mark was arguing that "Morality" is intrinsic to the universe.  I don't 
equate morality with Value.  Morality is a precept of social behavior 
sanctioned by the society or culture.  While it may be the basis for 
morality, Value is the sensibiity of the individual self.  Since the self 
actualizes the universe from Value, it is the very "stuff" or ground of 
experiential existence.  So, in that sense, I have no quarrel with you 
statement.

> Your epistemology is based upon your beliefs and your beliefs
> are based upon your psychological motivations to believe.
> This is one of the points you repeatedly evade.  So let's leave
> that point alone and just address your logic.  You think
> value-sensibility is proprietary to the self, but how can
> sensibility be proprietary when we only sense some *thing*
> Without some aspect of otherness to sense, there would be
> no perception or idea of a self in the first place.  So what
> does "proprietary" mean to you?  And why do you cling to it
> so forcefully?

My epistemology is actually quite universal, except for Pirsigians who are 
confused about how we value things due to their believe that we are 
"patterns" of Quality.  Your interpretation of sensibility as sensing some 
"thing" is off the mark.  We sense Value differentially and actualize 
'things' experientially.  The things that represent our differentiated 
values is the 'otherness' experienced as finite beingness.  Thus each 
individual acquires a perspective of 'being-in-the-world' that is his own 
private universe.  That's what I mean by "proprietary".

> Well then Ham, "man's value-sensibility" being the whole of
> existence doesn't obviate value/morals from being intrinsic to
> the universe.  In fact, it makes it "the whole enchilada", as I
> (and Pirsig) was saying in the first place.

John, unless you equate "morals" with differentiated "values", morality is 
not fundamental to this ontology.  We are valuistic creatures; we know the 
Primary Source only in terms of its Value divided by our own nothingness. 
We bring Value into Being as a relational world in which we are the 
cognizant locus.  That's your "whole enchilada".

[Ham previously]:
>> I see no point in analyzing animal consciousness when there is
>> so little agreement as to the functioning of human consciousness.
>> I'm not saying that animals have no feelings.  Sure, chimps
>> exhibit grief for dead relatives.  A dog winces when you step
>> on its foot.  But does this mean that animals share man's
>> value-sensibility?  Not only is this impossible to prove empirically,
>> I wouldn't want to bet on it.

[John]:
> Fair enough.  It's admittedly a debateable point.  Does a dog have
> a buddha-nature?  Who knows?  But I for one would argue on the
> side of the way mammals *seem* to share emotional congruences
> with man.  But as you say, when we don't agree on the facts of
> human consciousness, it seems silly to go any further.  If you believe
> the universe is intrinsically amoral, then of course all the animals in it
> are as well.  But how you set man apart from this formulation
> of yours is what continues to elude me.

Again you will say that "my beliefs are based on my psychological 
motivations."  But it is my considered view that existence is an 
anthropocentric system, which makes Man a "special" creation.  As the agent 
of value, Man is the creature with the intelligence and rationality to 
establish his own culture and morality, master the laws of Nature, adapt the 
world to his productive and creative needs, and direct the course of 
civilization.

It is of course conceivable that rational, intelligent life forms exist on 
some distant planet; but until they makes themselves known, I think it is 
childish to believe that apes, chimpanzees, or dolphins are endowed with the 
value-sensibility that has enabled Man to become the ruler of this one.

[Previously]:
>> But keep working at your "love and understanding", John.
>> You won't offend anybody, and you may even come to
>> understand that the love and admiration you feel for others
>> is your subjective sensibility, not a fragment of Quality
>> you've picked up from the universe.

> Well that part makes sense.  My love and understanding are
> my own subjective sensibility, I'll grant you.  But believing in
> Love and Understanding writ large, and striving for Intersubjective
> agreement make more sense to me than all your solipsistic
> rejection of the reality of otherness.
>
> Just trying to help.

They say the world helps him who helps himself.  So give it your best try, 
John.

Best regards,
Ham