[MD] The Dynamics of Value

[Ham Priday]

Hello John, also Adrie and Mark--

If I can prevail upon John, who came up with a new heading, I prefer to 
resurrect the title I initiated with Mark last October for two reasons:
1)  Value (Quality) and its relation to morality is the real subject of this 
discussion.
2)  While the flippancy of gastro-intestinal effects may be amusing, I'd 
prefer to get away from analogy, if possible, and discuss the ramifications 
of Value in existence as a metaphysical principle.

[John]:
> You left the most important aspect of my argument out
> in your reformulation, Ham, to wit: "Society is comprised of
> individuals collectively relating with one another and their
> common environment" - yes, I agree.  Therefore  the morality
> of a society reflects the individual values shared by the
> members AND the consensus reached will be that which
> reflects their congruence with that common environment.
> Consensus in society is formed by the values (quality interactions)
> of Nature.  This is how social morality evolves.  Not out of
> man's head, but from the well-springs of man's being - his
> relationship with his natural environment.  The only possible
> source of consensus is this "common environment".

If Nature is your "common environment", I see no connection between the laws 
of nature and social morality.  Boyles law, the conservation of energy, the 
relativity of mass to energy, and the law of gravity have nothing to do with 
morality as I comprehend it.  What is society's "congruence with that common 
environment"  supposed to mean, and how does it apply to social 
institutions?

If it's any consolation, John, I do like Jeffers' poem very much, and agree 
that "the beauty of the universe" lies in "the wholeness of life and 
things."  For me, you see, this expresses the principle of Essential Value 
from which man is estranged at birth.  As a finite being whose experience is 
based on a handful of sensory inputs, man only knows value (essent-value) 
relationally in terms of finite beingness.

> But to my thinking it's obvious that Nature is much more
> than an intellectual construct.  For one thing, "intellectual
> constructs" come from Nature, not the other way around.
> Let's keep the signifier "nature" and the signified separate here,
> for goodness' sake.

Nature is, indeed, much more than an intellectual construct.  It is embued 
with the intelligent design, coherency, and teleological drive of its 
creator, which is why it holds so much value for us.  However, I view Nature 
as the "signified" (object), not a "signifier" (subject).

> I accuse you of focusing upon Man and his intellectual
> constructs, rather than that from which both come into being.
> Nature is the Absolute Source.  Any other intellectual
> construct you posit, is just words in your head.

I assure you that Nature is NOT the Absolute Source.  So far as we know it 
is not even "absolute".  This is plain Existentialism -- the theory that 
Being precedes Essence which is the "final outcome" of its evolution.  So 
long as your concept of reality is based on Being instead of Essence, you 
and I will continue talking past each other.

[Ham, previously]:
> Precepts like causality, contrariety, and justice are
> intellectualized from experience.

[John]:
> I can't just swallow that without a lot more explanation.
> For one thing, a lot of experience is derived from an
> a priori understanding of causality and contrariety.
> Without such concepts, experience would be chaotic.
> Ultimately, these things might be seen to come from
> experience, but not appearing by themselves.  Some other
> factor must be brought in to explain how they arise.

Are you a postmodern Kantian, John?  How can our understanding of causality 
and contrariety be intuitive or a priori?  The "other factor" you're looking 
for, I think, is the universal template, or what I call 'essent-value'.

> You say, "The Source" like a Jedi says "The Force".  It seems
> to me that you've just got a postulate whereby you hang all
> your metaphysical concepts without any evidence or reasoning
> behind it other than "well, something has to be the source."

You bet I do!  I learned early on that you can't develop a philosophy 
without a proper foundation.  If the physical universe is your reality, then 
Science is your philosophy, Nature is your playground, and all your "truths" 
are empirical.  Robert Pirsig tried for something else -- a Quality-based 
idealism.  His problem was that he called his thesis a "metaphysics", which 
it is not.  Of course "something has to be the source".  But it's neither 
value nor quality which depend on consciousness.  Essence not only connotes 
"necessary" (as in 'ex nihilo') but the ultimate nature of that necessary 
"something".  So my philosophy is a metaphysics of Essence which 
incorporates the dynamics of existential value.

> Quality and Choice are inextricably intertwined.  Where there
> is no Choice, there is no Quality.  Perhaps Pirsig failed to
> explicate this fully becuase it is just so darn obvious.   But you
> can't say then, that man's choice is fundamental for the reverse
> is also true - without Quality, there can be no Choice.  They
> co-exist, all the way down to the quantum level and that
> really is the whole enchilada as far as we can see.

I would suggest that we can't see far enough through this dark glass to 
discover what Reality is.

Essentially speaking,
Ham