[MD] The Dynamics of Value

[118]

Hi Ham,
Thanks for your viewpoint.  I would like to respond to your last
paragraph below, all else was snipped for brevity.  I also add some
musing.  I am not quite sure why you consider MoQists to be fatalists.

On Mon, Feb 21, 2011 at 2:40 PM, Ham Priday <hampday1 at verizon.net> wrote:
> It should be clear to you that I do not reject Value.  What I reject is the
> idea that Value (or Quality) is a universal force or entity that exists
> independently of man.  Value is relational: It is always sensed in terms of
> its relative benefit to the cognizant agent.  Without an observing subject,
> there is no value.  (Even Pirsig said that something that is not valued
> doesn't exist.)  I also do not consider Value per se as ultimate Reality or
> the primary source.  Those stipulations, along with my belief in the innate
> freedom of man, are what separates me from the MoQ doctrine.

[Mark]
It would appear that you prefer something other than Quality as being
a primary force in this universe.  You have described this as an
Architect, or Creator, or even a blue print.  I fully understand your
conception of the personal interpretation of Value (or Quality, if I
may), when you state (above) that "[Value] is sensed.."  My premise is
no different in that Quality is sensed.  For something to be sensed,
it must exist outside of the sensor.

A major point of contention are our views of how Quality or Value is
derived.  The more common view, which you subscribe to, is that
quality arises through the comparison of two objects.  Such comparison
depends on our world-view and history, thus such quality is ultimately
subjective, and does not exist without a discerner.  On the other
hand, what I am proposing is a view where we interpret a quality which
is already there.  It is such quality which creates the difference
between things, and gives us choice.  As such, Quality has a driving
force which influences the manner in which things unfold.  Our
subjective thoughts are a manifestation of such Quality, and cannot be
separated from the rest.

I do not arrive at this distinction through any kind of spiritual
leap, but do so logically.  While many view the human condition like a
black box, where somehow free will arises out of the digital firing of
neurons.  Others have used the word "soul" to describe such control,
but leave the definition of soul somewhat unclear in that it is
non-material and unmeasurable in nature.  I do not have a problem with
this.  However, the interaction of the soul with the physical body
needs some evaluation.  (this and much which follows is kind of an
aside)

Having studied neurochemistry in graduate school, it is easy to relate
the whole subjective feeling of "I" to a materialistic origin.  That
is it is simply a product of the workings of the brain.  If this is
true, then a computer, or a river also contains a consciousness.
There is a difference, however, between having a consciousness, and
having ones own consciousness.  This of course, creates the body mind
distinction.

If we look directly at the neurochemical level, where thoughts can
actually be stimulated electrically, we can get some idea on how
thoughts arise.  However, this still doesn't explain how those
thoughts are yours or mine.  Nevertheless, such thoughts are a
function of the quality of the input into that particular neuron.  If
a threshold is reached, then the nerves fires.  This is a binary (all
or nothing) system.  As the environment demands, the nerves fire.  Any
control of this must come from outside the nervous system. The
complexity arises of course from the complexity of the connections
between nerves.

So, what causes a nerve or pattern of nerves to fire?  I would have to
say that it is the distinction between things, not the things
themselves.  We cannot willfully demand that a certain thought present
itself.   It is this active separation which I term Quality.  It is
not some supernatural force, but it is the basis for our
consciousness.

A white polar bear in a white blizzard would cause no such firing in
our heads.  We cannot forcibly think about something that we want to
think about.  Thoughts are the result of a an interactive process.
Either a thought arises from an event, or one thought leads to
another, back to the beginning.  There is no primal controlling
thought.

Now, you may say that this is a scientific approach, but I only
provide this example as an analogy, not as a Truth.  It is imbued with
rhetoric.  I firmly believe that there is no distinction between a so
called scientific approach and any other metaphysical approach.  Such
differences are promoted by those who do not live in the scientific
forefronts or question them.  One is not more True than another,
although one may have more general agreement than another.  We are
using words to convey an awareness.  Such words must have a mutual
understanding.  Often science produces such mutual understanding, so I
use it.

So, Quality is not some supernatural, Godlike force, it is simply what
is present.  It can be used to explain much of our interpretation of
the cosmos.  It does not rely on things that we need to conceive of
which are outside our pragmatic understanding.  There is no barrier
between Quality outside or inside, since such a barrier does not
exist.  It is either all outside or all inside.  It is a result of
flux and change, and we are witnesses of such.

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
>