[MD] The Dynamics of Value

[Ham Priday]

Dr. Long John, I presume --


[Continuing our conversation of 2/12]:

> 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.

'The way of all flesh' seems a very shallow ideology for a philosopher to 
pin his hopes on, John.  Your "the universe = the whole enchilada" concept 
of reality leaves a lot to be desired, despite your rejection of Socrates' 
idea that the object (Value) of man's desire is what he is not.  Even the 
existentialist Sartre mused that "we want the being of the other for 
ourselves."  Wanting or desiring is the motivating force of man's existence; 
it accounts for his development of language, civilization, morality, 
agriculture, and science, as well as religion, and philosophy.  Simply 
wanting to "better yourself" (or move to "betterness", as Pirsig would 
phrase it) exemplifies the power of Value in our world.


> 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 ...

You see, I would reverse your premise and say that "the point of having 
Freedom is the capacity for spiritual fulfillment."  And I would never 
characterize Freedom as "the correct way to have an entanglement" or any 
other relationship.  Nothing impedes Freedom so much as the notion of 
"correctness"--what we 'ought' to do.  This is the problem I see with social 
or state-imposed morality; it's the collective herd telling the individual 
what's good for him.  Such hubris has planted the seeds of statism and 
tyranny throughout the history of mankind.  Why, for goodness sake, do you 
scoff at the idea of "supposed individuals" being the source of realized 
Value?  Can you suggest any other sensible source, or do you think Value 
grows on trees?

> 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".

I wonder if your employment in the construction trade is union-affiliated. 
If so, doesn't this restrict your independence and enjoyment of freedom?

I, too, believe free choice is fundamental.  It's what separates us from the 
animal kingdom and makes us rational creatures.  The "absolute sensibility 
of Essence" is something we don't possess as human beings, hence we desire 
(value) for ourselves.  That's why value is the center of our 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 it's just an obvious truism.  So how come you
> claim you aren't one, when you say stuff like this in fundamental 
> agreement?

Intellect is just one function of human cognition that deals with empirical 
knowledge.  It enables us to "make sense" of our experience and manage our 
lives reasonably in a relational environment.  Unfortunately, it is not a 
source of spiritual fulfillment or metaphysical understanding.  Value goes 
deeper than this.  It's not simply the ability to label things "high" or 
"low quality" or to judge their degree of excellence.  Value is our 
fundamental link with the primary source, which in my philosophy is Absolute 
Essence.  The Pirsigians do not regard Quality as either primary or 
absolute.  Instead, they describe it as something that "moves to betterness" 
and, because they associate this with an evolving universe, they falsely 
equate Quality with a "universal principle".
This makes man a robot of universal Quality, effectively robbing him of his 
innate freedom.  Does that answer your question, John?

> 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?

Being, as we experience it, is finite, relational and transitory.  It is how 
we identify the objects of our existence (For example: this being is a ball; 
that being is a rock; my being is a human individual.)   Essence is the 
potentiality to actualize a sensible "agent".  Existence takes the form of 
Sensibility/Otherness.  This dichotomy formed by the negation (or exclusion) 
of finite Sensibility becomes the agent, leaving the 'motherlode' to 
represent the agent's otherness, or the appearance we call existence. 
Absolute Essence is uncreated and not subject to the conditions of 
beingness, such as time, space, and change or evolution.  Inasmuch as 
negation is the differentiator of existence (from Essence), Value can be 
understood as the unifying principle that draws sensibility back to its 
absolute source.

[Ham, previously]:
>> 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.

Okay, John.  Have your fun at my expense.  Metaphysical concepts are not 
easily articulated, since society hasn't given us the language to describe 
them.  Suffice it to say that the time/space appearance of energy and 
mass -- "otherness in process"  -- is how we perceive existence (crop 
circles notwithstanding.)

[John]:
> 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?

Again, John, things don't come into being by themselves.  The mind behind 
existence is ours, the potential that creates it is Essence, and the design 
to which the cosmos is fine-tuned is our sense of Value actualized by 
experience.

> 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.

Spoken like a true nihilist, John.  You're looking at the "pragmatic whole"; 
I search for the "essential whole".  There's all the difference in the world 
between these two approaches.  Yet we're still conversing.  Which makes me 
wonder...why do I bother?

[snip]

> 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.

It must be the verdict at the end of the road that keeps me going.  (Bet'cha 
I get there before you do.)

Cheers,
Ham