[MD] Quality and the Higgs Field: An Analogy

[118]

Hi Ham,
Thought I would intrude yet again.

On Wed, Feb 9, 2011 at 10:18 PM, Ham Priday <hampday1 at verizon.net> wrote:
> Welcome again, John --
>
> By the way, one of us should change the subject line.  (What more can we say
> about the Higgs Field?)

[Mark]
Yes, these threads do tend to meander.  This is more of a Dynamics of
Quality subject.  It is the nature of these threads that makes looking
up things that were posted in the past, since interesting parts are
often imbedded in strange places.  However, that is also the fun of
this forum, that it takes its own directions.
>
> [Ham previously]:
>
> What is Nature but an intellectual construct of essential value?  That
> construct comprises both the good and the bad.  It is man, the measure of
> all things, who distinguishes what is good (for him) and establishes a moral
> system that will foster it.  Like everything else in our experiential
> reality, morality is a representation of our sensibility to Value, which is
> an aspect of the Absolute Source.  So, why do accuse me of positing Value as
> springing from nothing?  The primary source may not be an 'existent', but it
> is far more real than man's concept of morality.

[Mark]
It is your premise that I disagree with here.  I would state that
intellectual constructs are subordinate to nature.  How much choice
does man have in determining what is good?  I know there are
masochists out there, but for the most part we do not think that pain
is good.  Is this really our choice?  If pain is bad, we would
consider it to be immoral to inflict pain on another.  So, it would
seem that our use of morality is somewhat directed from outside.
>

> I assume you're asking why I distinguish morality from Value.  For the same
> reason that I distinguish intellection from sensibility.  Precepts like
> causality, contrariety, and justice are intellectualized from experience,
> whereas Value is our primary connection with the Source.  The individual is
> a sensible agent of Value.  Everything he experiences is a differentiated
> representation of Value.  Likewise, everything he creates -- art, music,
> literature, architecture, and morality -- are morivated by his value
> orientation.

[Mark]
The parsing is hard to follow here.  Does morality have Value?  Can it
be considered a sub-set of Value.  Pirsig would perhaps contend that
Quality and Morality are two different words for the same thing.  Now,
this makes conversation difficult.  But please remember that he is
proposing this for rhetorical effect, not as a math equation.

It would seem that you are using the term Value, in the same way I use
the term Quality.  If Value is the primary connection with the source,
are we in charge of that connection?  Or are we subject to the premise
that it is our connection.  I guess what I am asking, is do we
willingly make the connection through Value, or is that outside our
control?
>
[Ham]
> There is no "magic" to my ontology.  If it doesn't make sense to you, it's
> because either you misconceive it or are attempting to force it into
> Pirsig's "Quality universe" paradigm.  That won't work, because if Quality
> were "all goodness", as the MoQ suggests, there would be no measure of value
> available to man, no way for him to recognize inferiority from excellence
> and choose accordingly.  But that, in fact, is man's role as the free agent
> of value.  In my opinion, the concept of the unverse as exclusively moral is
> a serious flaw in Pirsig's ontology; it overlooks the significance of man's
> Freedom as the choice-maker of existence.
>
[Mark]
All goodness, let's explore that.  I have heard it asked, that "if God
is everything, then what is bad?".  This is where Quality comes in
with its stratification.  We could say that life can never be bad,
considering the alternative.  By this analogy, we could say that all
life is good.  However, because of our Yin Yang tendencies, we have to
call something bad.  But is it really bad?  So, all goodness, but in a
stratified way.  Is that acceptable?  There can be good quality and
bad quality, but it is all quality.
   >
> I'm sorry about your digestive problems, but it is you who are still tauting
> the SOM view with your "world out there, we're in here" description.  Apart
> from acknowledging subjects and objects as what we experience, I've
> maintained all along that everything is "in here" in that the universe is a
> proprietary value construct.  I'm not responsible for how you interpret this
> statement.  Nor do I see any need to defend the fact that my beliefs are
> "psychologically motivated".  How, does that differ from being "psychically
> motivated"?   Indeed, what belief isn't?

[Mark]
I will not speak for John, but the world out there is the world in
here.  So, I believe I would agree with you.  However the way you
present it in terms of proprietary value construct is somewhat
incorrect in my view.  I guess it is the term proprietary which I have
trouble with.  If you mean it in terms of ownership, I am fine, but if
you mean it in terms of control, then I think you are off-base.  We
can own a house, but we cannot control how it remains standing.
Although, we can help it do so, we are still at the mercy of its
needs, not in control of them.  I think the use of psychology is over
rated.  Like you say, what doesn't come from the psyche in this forum?
>
> That's enough for now.  I would comment on your (erroneous) statement
> relating "the proper laws of Nature" to morality, and the fatal "hubristic
> excesses" that befall those who "cheat or break those laws," except I fear
> that would lead us into social polemics which is not my cup of tea.
>
[Mark]
Punishment and morality.  I am not sure if the two are necessarily
connected.  Often there are immoral acts that "a president"  may
commit that go unpunished.  This does not mean that they are not
immoral (ha, ha, just laying the bait for some silly meandering).
\

Cheers,
Mark
>
> Moq_Discuss mailing list
> Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
> Archives:
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
> http://moq.org/md/archives.html
>