[MD] The Dynamics of Value

[John Carl]

Ho Ham,

Sorry about the long delay.  I have been thinking and reading along the
lines of our discussion, and hopefully I'll have something interesting to
contribute which will justify the pause in conversation.

[John previously]:
>
>  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".
>>>
>>
>
Ham:


> Unless what you mean by "natural environment" is human society--"the social
> milieu"--I can't relate Quality or Value to Nature.  The laws and principles
> of Nature are the teleological order of the cosmos; the code of moral
> behavior is a majority consensus of individual values shared in common.



John:

But Ham, from whence does this "majority consensus arise"?  There is only
one plain and simple answer to my mind - it arises from those interrelations
and interactions with the environment that the individuals have in common.
The "teleological order of the cosmos" is the only known source of our
being, and thus the only valid source of our values.  Admittedly, we have a
willful, creative aspect of choosing our values, but ultimately it is the
conformity of our interpretations to our environmental context which give
teeth to such abstract ideas as "truth" and "justice" and "freedom".

Ham:

We perceive 'individually' what we think about 'individually'.  "Collective
> thought" is a misnomer.  Ayn Rand made this clear when she said: "No man can
> think for another."



John:

"Individually" is just as much a misnomer as "collective thought".  For one
thing, the very  vocabulary of our thinking is socially formed and for
another, any thinking is done in response to a social milieu.  Either we are
responding to or reacting against, what some other has said.  And we think
and express our thoughts and words, into this milieu in the expectation of
how the other will react.  If a thought is expressed, purely
individualistically, can it even be said to exist?

And personally, after having done more and more reading into this critique
of Rand sitting open in front of me at the moment, I question whether that
woman is capable of real thought at all.  Maybe that's why she specified
"man" -  to draw attention away from the shoddy foundation for the edifice
she builds.


Ham:

 Intellection/conceptualization is a proprietary function of the conscious
> self.



John:

Our root disagreement, right there.  You haven't examined this very deeply,
Ham.  Otherwise you could not emphasize the "conscious self" and it's
"priprietary functions" quite so glibbly without examining more deeply what
those concepts are, and how they are derived.

Ham:

 When we attempt to communicate our concepts in words, we take the first
> step towards collectivizing thought.  That's why two people who disagree
> about a fundamental principle cannot resolve their differences verbally.
>  Language is universal; concepts are not.
>
>
John:

All language is conceptualization, although not all conceptualization falls
into the category of "language", I'd still argue that conceptualization
comes about through the process of attempting to interpret the "signs" of
reality.  And thus, is even MORE universal than language.  I'd argue that
its the universality of conceptualized, of the organism and its environment,
which leads to the universality of language.  In fact, that seems so obvious
to me, that I wouldn't even know how to begin to argue for it.  I guess I'd
like to see how you could possibly argue against it, and then show you the
error of your ways.

Ham:

Metaphysics not not about what man "wants" but about what man "is".  If we
> are content to simply relate ourselves to the finite things and events
> passing before us, how can we hope to get beyond this otherness and discover
> the "essence" of Reality?
>
>
John:

This seems to be a real hangup in our discussion - the point I keep making
that your interpretation of "what a man *is" *is a view you *want* to hold.
You've pointed out that this is obvious, but what you seem to fail to
understand then, is that this makes the distinction you offer about the
difference between *wants* and *is,* therefore meaningless.

We can never get beyond this otherness to discover the essence of Reality,
Ham.  The only essence of Reality that is ever possible, is only
*through*otherness, not beyond it.  This seems to be a big hangup for
you - distaste
for otherness.  Hmmm... that's a shame.  Since's is an impossible trap for
you.


John Prev.


>  Well I Therefore, could it not be viewed differently,
>> that trees are actually part of your breathing apparatus?
>> That trees are an extension of your lungs?  The advantage of
>> viewing it this way, is that by extension you begin to understand
>> that your subject is much bigger and more interconnected with
>> your object than you realize at first glance.  You obviously value
>> your self, so how big is your self?  Wouldn't it be preferable
>> to expand your self?  Try a different view, is my suggestion.
>>
>
>
Ham:


> But Essentialism IS a different view, John.  I am not now, and never will
> be, a tree.



John:

Ok, just to be clear.  I meant "different" in the sense of different than
what you're already doing.  Different from Essentialism.  I mean, I
personally sometimes shift metaphysical views just to get a bit of
perspective.  But I think the reasons for you to do so, are somewhat more
important than a mere perspectivity-shift.  Methinks thou are truly stuck in
a dead-end world view.  And dr. John wants to help.  So that's what I mean
by "try a different view, is my suggestion."

And what you mean by this "you" you talkin' 'bout white man... ? the flesh
of your body, if buried someday in a half-way decent graveyard, could
certainly become part of a tree and if you mean "you" apart from the flesh
of your body, then you're talking about ghosts with no empirical OR
metaphysical evidence for same.  Shame on ya.

Ham:


> I understand that the exchange of gases in plant photosynthesis provides
> the oxygen we need to breathe.  As a human being I am dependent on the being
> of nature and all the biological processes this implies.  As a thinking
> self, however, I embody another kind of reality.  So the question comes down
> to this: Do I feed my stomach while allowing my soul to starve? I'd like to
> make this limited lifespan account for something more than a mere pass
> through existence.
>
>
John:

Amen!  Now yer talking sense.  I agree completely.  And I ask, for the
umpteenth time - what is this "something more" if not a social pattern?
Because without the coninuation of the patterns we influence socially, our
lives amount to little more than tree-food.  Is what I'm saying.

Ham:

As a young pre-med major, I was fortunate to have been introduced to the
> essentials of cellular biology, anatomy, physiology and embryology, as well
> as physics and chemistry.  But it was philosophy that put these diverse
> scientific studies into a unitary perspective for me.  I started reading
> Schopenhauer, Sartre, Chardin, Jaspers, Jung, and Watts, and realized that
> there was more to life than factual knowledge, that what really drives
> mankind is the desire for what he is not.  This principle evetually led to a
> valuistic ontology for which I sought the insight of wiser thinkers.  Not
> everything I read was inspirational, but occasionally I would stumble on a
> gem of wisdom that filled some gap my thesis, and by this slow, selective
> process I arrived at a philosophy that was meaningful for me.
>


John:

I appreciate your explanation of your process.  I especially like your
ending up with "a valuistic ontology".  I couldn't agree with you more on
that point.  But I choke upon your "what really drives mankind is the desire
for what he is not"  I'm afraid this phrase speaks more to your mind-set
than mine.  What really drives me, is the desire for what is, that I have
not yet attained.  There are many things I am not, which I have no desire
for at all.  For instance, I'm certainly not you, and I have no desire to
be.

I see it simply thus - my valuistic ontology is centered upon what is - the
whole enchilada is the source of my values, and the more I can relate to,
understand and encapsulate the whole enchilada, then the happier I am.  What
is not, that is, what I am not AND is not part of reality, I have no
interest in.  Purple monsters floating in space?  I am not one of those, and
I have no desire to be so.

I think there's more to "a valuistic ontology" than you are comprehending
here.  There must be a positive spin - a direction upon the valuistic axis,
in order for value itself to be meaningful and the only really good
postulations for this fundamental value, metaphysically speaking, that I've
understood, anyway, have come from Pirsig and Royce.  And I don't think I
would have understood Royce, without Pirsig's help.  So it's a strange kind
of inheritance, in a way.

But there is a proper understanding of reality.  A relationship between
subject and object that is "good".  It doesn't arise from the subject.  It
isn't contained in any isolated object.  It dances around, this
"entanglement between" and it's really the heart of this MoQ thingy which
you seem to keep rejecting for some reason that doesn't completely make
sense to me.

Yet.


But dr. John persists>


>
> [Previously]:
>
>  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.
>>
>
> [John]:
>
>  You assure me, based upon what logical grounds?  Have you
>> ascended unto the most high?  Have you transcended the
>> fountains of life and encompassed all in your view and see
>> how things really are?
>>
>
> Ham:


> In an intellectual way I have.  I too found 'Being and Nothingness'
> fascinating.  But when I explored the theories that had led to existentalism
> and learned that Nietzsche was really not an atheist, I saw that man's
> highest aspiration is not power, wealth or notoriety, but spiritual
> fulfillment, and this is not attainable short of a religious or mystical
> conversion that robs man of his freedom.


John:

Oh.. piffle, Ham.  Maybe for a short while.  Usually the ways of liberation
(you should really get this one, since you say you like Watts so much) do
mean that you have to be liberated FROM something.  So there's an element of
captivity in all of man's highest aspirations, and the one about "spiritual
fulfillment", especially so.

But the point of spiritual fulfillment, to my mind, is freedom.  I intepret
"spiritual fulfilment" as simply being having a view that harmonizes with
the correct way to have a good entanglement between.  The proper
organization of the organism's views, so that it enjoys its interactions
with its environment.  That's truly the highest sort of spiritual
fulfillment there is.  Ask Lao Tzu.  He'll tell you.  Or lord knows,
Pirsig's written enough on the subject...  But we come back to the
persistent question of why... why you can't accept Pirsig's obvious
arguments.  Or mine, for that matter.  Why you cling to such an obviously
fallaciously anthropocentric view of values arising from a supposed
"individual", when it doesn't make any logical sense.

I mean, you sure *seem* like an intelligent guy and all ...

Ham:

 An individual who is not free is a slave to someone else's dogma or
> authority; and that is immoral because it deprives him of realizing his own
> values.  Some regard this state of affairs as "paradoxical"'.  I view it as
> the transition of value from realization by an 'other' to the absolute
> sensibility of Essence.
>
>
John:

I agree that individuals are not free, the paradox is, they are not free
because they choose to view themselves thusly.  I feel free.  I choose to
view myself as being free and other people give me feedback that I seem to
them like a free-thinking person.  And while admittedly, I am at the minute
unemployed, and thus even more "free-feeling" than usual; employment is
something I always relish, and feel good about being there of my own free
will - even longing, depending on how long it is since I'd been employed
last!  Construction, my main career path, has it's periods of work and
time-off, and we old guys get experienced in its ways, and learn how to
enjoy both - and enjoyment, is a choice we almost always have available.

So I do believe choice is fundamental.  Not choice to force the world into
the mold you'd like it, but choice to orient yourself in the world so as to
have the most enjoyment of your experience while it lasts.  And that's the
only choice that seems important to me.  I don't get the "absolute
sensibility of Essence", but I do get "value is the center of all being".

Ham:


> James Fletcher Baxter defined the 'Human Paradigm' thusly: "The intellect
> can rise no higher than the criteria by which it perceives and measures
> values."  I think there is much truth in this precept.
>
>
John:

Yeah, well, to a Pirsigian its just an obvious truism.  So how come you
claim you aren't one, when you say stuff like this in fundamental agreement?



 John Prev;


>> But please, just tell me, what is the essential difference between
>> essence and being?  If essence has no being, then why even
>> get all worked up about it?  Or do you think it's a matter of
>> which comes first, and that's your main point?
>>
>
>
Ham:


> It's not a matter of which comes first; it's the issue of metaphysical
> primacy.  Being is finitude divided by nothingness


John:

"divided by nothingness" is just as meaningless as "divided by zero", Ham.
You're just spinning circles around yourself with these terms, and they
don't go anywhere anyway - "what is nothingness?"  "Ummm... it's the
opposite of somethingness."
"What is somethingness?"

"Ah, well, you know... it's the opposite of nothingness".

But I'd ask you instead, "what's the difference" and the only possible
answer you come up with, would be a valuation.

Valuation, Ham..

So who's your "metaphysical primacy" now? heh-heh.

Ham:


> -- the time/space appearance of energy and mass as otherness in process.
>  Essence is the ultimate and unconditional source from which all otherness
> is negated.
>
>
>

John:

Like... Like... this> <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hs9yu8JXeRQ>



Ham:

  What I meant to say was that the coherency of physical reality (the
> universal template) reflects the intelligence of a "designer"   (Essence).



John:

Ohhh.h.hhh... Well then.   That actually makes sense.  Why not just do it
that way then?  I bet you'd get more understanding of where you're coming
from.

The only way I can conceive that you might be wrong in your formulation, is
that the "coherency of physical reality" was it's own designer.  A sort of
living cosmos, revealed as its own intelligence with no "outsiders"
invited.  No God or force or energy of anything outside the universe, but
the universe itself, some sort of innate, creative mind.  Otherwise, science
would be incapable of meaningfulness.  The necessity of order - Quality - to
the endeavors of science is indisputable.  The question is, is this Quality
of the cosmos itself, or is it a mere fiction of our own thinking?

Now what I say is, "what difference does it make?"  If you look at it
pragmatically, it comes out the same in the end - evolution and creation
both must place the source of value upon the whole itself - that is, the
evolutionary process which got us here, or the creator/intelligence which
put us here - either way, our source of values is the creation or
evolutionary process that we observe in the real world, the teachings/word
of our creator or the very source of our being.  And this cosmos is not only
our source, it's our source of values as well.  Not in any particular part,
but in the realization of the whole, including the process which makes this
infinite whole into our being, conceptualized infinitely, and experienced
intimately - here, where we  eat and breathe and have our being.

There are many invented ideas out there.  Many religions, many metaphysics.
Many  reifications of principles, even idolatrous forms  of pre-conceptual
manipulations which tend to produce future generations, amenable to
control.  Yawn.  Yeah, seen it, watched it happening, rented the movie, read
the book.  The story of religion has been told and re-told.  Its not at
issue here, it cannot trap us ever again.

For we are free to wonder, moment to moment, I wonder what the best idea
is?  I wonder what the good thing to do now, would be?  That's freedom, and
that's Quality and that's all ye will ever know or ever need to know.
Quality/Valuation is fundamental, but equally so, is freedom.  Freedom IS
Quality, and if you can't have one, you can't have the other.

Is the way I look at it.

But you of course, are free to choose your own way of looking at things. :-)

Ham:

 I wanted to distinguish the laws and principles by which the universe
> evolves from the qualitative aspects of things and events which we actualize
> experientially from Value.
>
>

John:

Well my first question is "why", but that's a bit flippant so... as I decode
what you are saying, it makes a certain amount of sense.  You start with a
truth "I wanted..." and then spout a lot of gibberish going in circles
again.  There is no way to distinguish the laws of the universe from that
which we experience (and what possible functional distinction could be drawn
between "actualize experientially" and just plain ole "experience" Ham?
You're obfuscatin' agin... I c'n tell.)  For it is the laws which give rise
to our expectations of our experience.  We look down well-trodden paths,
with all our normal conceptualizations and these are all part of a "moral
code" to some degree or another.  We are taught how things should be, and
how we look at reality is largely conditioned by this.

Your desire to distinguish the two, makes little sense when it's just so
simple to acknowledge the simple point that there's no need to do so.
You're just using fancy terminology to seperate the subjective from the
objective, and the work has all been done, the path cleared, and you just
don't wanna go down there.  I still wonder why.



John Prev.

>
>  But we build meaning in a linear fashion, and we can intuit where our
>> direction is leading.  I'm content with an infinite process, as long as I
>> see I'm going in the right direction.
>>
>
> Ham:


> Anything that takes place in time is a linear process, and comprehending
> meaning may take a lifetime.  I'm not sure about intuition, though.
> Sometimes it can create a concept in a single flash of insight.
>
> Anyway, I'm glad your intuitive vision is good enough to know that you are
> going in the right direction.
>
>
John:

Even single flashes of insight have to be accepted, chosen freely.  And they
can be repressed with hard work.

And I don't know so much that my vision is good enough, as I  *choose* to
believe its good enough, and that choice seems to work out better for me,
which confirms to me that I am, but hey, the jury's never in yet.

And anyway, as long as we're conversing, we must be on the same road, at the
same point in time.  Maybe headed in opposite directions, but the jury is
out there as well.

Take care,

John