[MD] The Dynamics of Value

[Ham Priday]

Good evening, 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.

For something to be sensed, its source must be other than the sensor.  There 
is no "outside" or "inside" to Essence, which is the source of Value.  But 
the sensing self is not the Source; it is a negate of Essence --what might 
be considered a "synthetic other".  Sensibility is "borrowed" from Essence, 
just as Being is borrowed from Nature, and the self is the synthesis of 
these two essential aspects.  Essential Value (the white light entering the 
prism) is the undifferentiated or "primary object" of sensibility.

> 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.

I note that you deftly switch to "Quality" when you talk about comparing 
objects.  Grade 'A' eggs have more quality than Grade 'B' eggs, for example. 
This "pre-standardized" specificity is not well suited to personal 
"preference" as I understand Value.  But possibly it's what you are getting 
at when you interpret "a quality which is already there."  Where?  Is it on 
the carton label that's marked Grade A?  Or is it the appetite of the diner 
who prefers scrambled eggs to fried?   Quality may be measured universally 
in grades, numbers, or carrots, but the measure of a thing's Value is its 
desirability to the subject.  In that sense, also, Value is a better fit for 
your concept of "influencing the manner in which things unfold", which I 
call actualization.

> 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 one's own consciousness.  This of course, creates the body
> mind distinction.

That surprises me, Mark.  I'd be astonished if you could cite neurological 
or neuro-physical support for non-proprietary consciousness.  The closest 
I've ever come to this notion in my reading on the biological sciences was 
'The Biology of the Spirit' by Edmund Sinnott, a botanist who regarded the 
universe as an extension of the psyche.

[Condensing your musings for brevity]:
> If we look directly at the neurochemical level, where thoughts can
> actually be stimulated electrically, we can get some idea on how
> thoughts arise. ... 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. ...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.

Again, you are defining Quality as the separation of one thought from 
another.  I understand how this relates to the "attention" of the subject. 
In my opinion, however, it misses the very nature of Value (or Quality) 
which is either aesthetic, intellectual, or moralistic.  Quantitative 
separation is more of a cognitive or focusing function than a valuistic 
process as I conceive it.

> 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.
[snip]
> 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.

You say Quality (Value) is "what is present".  This of course supports 
Pirsig's thesis that EVERYTHING is Quality, which suggests that Value is 
Nature or the universe itself and we have only to "search it out".  I'm 
sorry, Mark, but this is not my idea of proprietary Value, nor do I view it 
as "a result of flux and change."  For me Value is our attraction to or 
desire for what is experienced, based on the orientation of our sensibility. 
In my epistemology, value-sensibility actually "drives" experience to 
produce the appearance of being in the world.  The relational order and 
differentiation of finite beingness is predesigned in the otherness that is 
sensibility's object.

What I sense at this juncture is that, although we both reject an 
"externalized" universe, your Quality is universal, whereas my Value is 
subjective.  Clearly, your worldview is closer to that of the MoQ.  How do 
you propose that we resolve this difference?  I'll admit the possibility 
seems rather hopeless.

Essentially perplexed,
Ham