[MD] Quality and the Higgs Field: An Analogy

[John Carl]

Hello again, Ham,



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.



John:

Ok, that seems like a worthy distinction that I hadn't really considered.
But my problem with your epistemology remains, for how does socially -
defined morality arise if not from the context of a society's relationship
with its environment?  We are so intertwined with our cosmic context, that
it seems plain to me, as Pirsig postulates, that all our morality is
ultimately derived from Nature and thus claiming the universe is "amoral"
completely side-steps this all-important consideration that Man's morality
comes from the relation with Nature, and doesn't just spring up from
nothing.  I mean, what happened to "ex niliho niliho fit"?  Or however it
was that you spelled the fact that there isn't anything that just pops up
out of nothingness.


Ham:


> 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.
>
>

John:

Ok, so morality arises from values.  Why the distinction then?  We're back
to the fact that its just differing terms for the same phenomenon, and
calling the universe "amoral" is identical to calling it "non-valuable".


Ham:


> 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.



John:

A lot of things that make no sense at all are quite "universal", so that
really doesn't address the logic of your proposition.  To my analysis, it is
the Pirsigian equation of Value with Morality that ultimately makes more
sense than your postulation of man's morality springing up by magic.

Ham:



>  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".
>


John:

It is confusing using the word "thing" the way that you do.  Is Value a
"thing" or isn't it?  However if I construe generously, and squint real
hard, I think I can get what you mean.  However I believe you're led astray
with "his own private universe".  I don't believe such actually exists.  The
universe of experience is that which is agreed upon socially.  If it weren't
for a social disposition to see things a certain way, the Inuit and the
South Seas Islander would view snow exactly the same.  They don't, because
they are attuned to their environment through cultural training.  The
definition of a person locked in his own private universe is called
"insanity".

Ham:

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".
>
>
John:

Well, it needs sour cream and salsa to be more palatable, but basically I
think I comprehend the  ingredients in your formulation and could digest it
if there wasn't anything better on the menu.  I  choke over "a relational
world in which we are the cognizant locus", however as it seems plainly to
me to be undigestible SOM, through and through.  There's the world out
there, and we're in here, always viewing it objectively.  It might be a
universally held truism, but that doesn't mean it makes sense
metaphysically.


Ham:


> 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.


John:

Yes it is your considered view, and THAT is what I'm talking about when I
bring up "psychological motivations".


Ham:


>  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.
>
>
John:

But only constrained by the proper laws of Nature (morality)  If man cheats,
or breaks these laws, he might gain temporal advantage over his fellow
beings, or promote the cause of his isolated loyalty, but in the end, he
will die from his hubristic excesses and if you can't see self-destruction
as being ultimately immoral, then its hard to figure out what you mean by
the word.

Ham:



> 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.
>
>
John:

The empirical evidence available to my analysis shows me that man is hardly
capable of even ruling himself in the long run, much less the whole planet.
If you don't think dolphins rule in their sphere, then you should try
swimming with them sometime.  Even the most vicious sharks tremble when the
dolphin gang enters their ken.


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

John;

They?  I think it was just Aesop, and he said "gods",  and I don't agree.

I say Nature is best commanded by obeying her.


John, dancin' with the wolves and swimmin' with the dolphins