[MD] The Dynamics of Value

[Ham Priday]

Ahoy, Mark --


On Sun, Feb. 27, 2011 ar 1:46 AM, Mark "118" <ununoctiums at gmail.com> wrote;

> I am using the term difference to impart that which defines.
> Quality exists, and from it we can appreciate differences
> through their perceived qualities.  I have tried to use a variety
> of analogies from apples to the stock market.  I am not sure
> how else to proceed, so I will drop the term difference.
> Qualities are not inherent in things themselves, they arise
> through that which differentiates one thing from another.
> This differentiation is an active process and thus creates.
>
>Things are defined or created by Quality.  They are the polar
> ends of a quality, such as a good apple and a bad apple.
> Value is our human way of describing that which we sense.
> We sense something that is real, not something we create,
> we sense Quality.  We have no ability of creating such a thing.
> I have used neurochemistry to try to explain this.  Yes, we
> value or appreciate something.  What we are doing is sensing
> Quality.  This would be like sensing the wind that blows.

By your analysis, sensing Quality is like blowing in the wind.  That's about 
all I can make of it.
What you forget (or refuse to acknowledge) is that Quality, like Goodness or 
Virtue, doesn't stand by itself.  It must have a referent source from which 
a thing can be created.  Positing the primary source as pure Quality has 
never made any sense to me.  I realize that Mr. Pirsig has based his 
"metaphysics" on Quality, and you are doing your best to honor it.  But, as 
you yourself have pointed out, Quality is a comparative valuation.  Without 
a cognizant agent and an objective referent, you are in effect calling 
nothingness Quality.

Surely you must see that this ontogeny falls flat on its face.  Logically, 
there has to be something beyond Quality to make valuation possible.  Given 
that we are the "valuing agent" that determines what Quality is, the search 
for a creator, potentiality, or being must turn inward.  The first question 
to be asked is: What am I in relation to the fundamental ground of my being?

With a little introspection, I can see that my self-awareness is independent 
of everything else, whereas my being is absolutely dependent on otherness. 
This tells me something fundamental about my existential reality; namely, 
that the awareness (or sensibility) component is divorced from the otherness 
(or being) component.  From this, I deduce that my connection to physical 
beingness is "valuistic"; which is to say, my sensibility draws me to 
otherness as a function of its subjective focus and desideristic need.  This 
function is intrinsic to my self-awareness or psyche.
Now, my experience tells me that the otherness toward which I am drawn 
consists of a diversity of things -- objects, plants, and people -- all 
localized in space and changing over time, relative to my immediate 
observation point.  Otherness certainly has my attention, as it is all I can 
be aware of other than my self and my body.  Futher, I am assured by the 
consistency and order of this reality, and the people who cohabit it with 
me, that, except for a slight difference in perspective, it is the same 
reality experienced by everyone.

I could of course conclude -- as many do -- that the universality of 
experience is sufficient to confirm objective existence as the true reality, 
and end my search here.  But, being a suspicious soul, I have reason to 
question the reliabiity of my experience as an indicator of truth --  
especially knowing that it is all "otherness" to me, and I to it.  Moreover, 
I have no direct knowledge of how this supposed "reality" got here and no 
understanding of the ground of its being, much less why "my part" of it 
should be disconnected from every other body's part.  Because these are 
questions I'm unable to answer empirically, I look to metyaphysics for 
answers.

I'll have more on the metaphysical approach, should you be interested.  For 
the present, however, I'd like to comment on what you have made of my 
assertions.

> If I read your paragraph above, it would appear that we have a
> sensibility to Value.  This would imply that Value exists outside of
> us, and we are able to sense it.

Since I believe the nature of the human psyche is "value-sensibility, I 
don't think "outside" or "inside" applies or is even relevant.

> We are attuned to such a thing, and endeavor to be in harmony
> with it.  I will agree that our personal interpretation of such value
> can differ from one person to another.  One person may think
> the water is hot, another cold.  This still does not dismiss the fact
> that the water has some quality.  I would term your "actualization"
> as my "interpretation".  We cannot actualize something out of nothing.

But we can "nothingize" something out of Absolute Essence, which is what 
negation does.
And if you can "interpret" an object from Essence without actualizing it, 
how does that object become real for me?

> Let me digress for a second to provide a result of viewing Quality as
> a primary creator.  Since this is MoQ, my example is one relevant to
> the forum.  In ZMM, there is discussion concerning motorcycle
> maintenance as an art.  There is also a depiction of so called
> Romantic and Classical thinking.  The thrust is to separate the two in
> terms of the intellectual effort required in each form of awareness.
> That is, the effort of the frontal cortex: analysis based on words and
> concepts is classical.  Now, romantic thinking can be considered
> to be more emotional or instinctual, such as the playing or listening
> to music.  Classical thinking is involved in repairing motorcycles or
> reading instruction manuals.  The split is artificial and somehow
> relegates the activity of the thinking mind to some different kind of
> event.  The Zen approach is to become fully involved in the activity,
> whatever it is.  In such a state, the doer and the doing become
> intertwined so that a separation cannot be felt.  That is, the
> mechanic becomes the repairing of the motorcycle, or the motorcycle
> itself.  In order to achieve this, intellectually, the mechanic must
> look between the objects and become part of a process.  This would
> be equivalent to looking at the task as one in which Quality is being
> followed rather than bits and pieces.  Therefore, to view what is
> actively involved in such a task rather than the objects themselves,
> becomes one of entering into the world of Quality.  Now, we do this
> anyway, and there is no way around it.  The point is to appreciate
> that this is what we are doing.  By making Quality the actual reality
> of what is happening, it is possible to treat it as a real entity.

Not to mock your suggestion, but even if I treat Quality as a "real entity", 
it has far less substantivity to me than a motorcycle or its mechanical 
components.  I can see, handle, smell, measure, and tool or fit physical 
objects together; I can't do any of these things with Quality.

> We speak of the unfolding of reality.  This is an active process.
> It does certainly follow certain patterns which we subscribe to rules.
> That is, we have some expectations of what will happen (although
> we are often wrong).  So, such unfolding is active, perhaps in a
> predictable way, perhaps not.  The design is constantly being defined
> as it changes.  Such cosmic design is affected by free will, therefore
> it is active.  Since we are part and parcel of the cosmos, and we feel
> we have choice, the cosmic design cannot be immutable, but must be
> subject to our interference.  A concept of immutability leads to
> determinism.  Now, one could argue that the design is every
> possibility that could ever be, and in that sense it would logically
> already be there, immutable.  However such a statement does not
> have meaning.

If the cosmic design is being defined as it changes, the design is a 
function of the definition, rather than the designer.  This smacks more of 
probability than teleology.  The cosmic design need not be affected by free 
will; the will applies to finite existents created by human beings, not the 
design itself.  The design is only a roadmap for existence, not the 
pavement, vehicles, and people traversing it.  Moreover, as I've said 
repeatedly, man is immune from "predetermination" because he is a free 
agent, estranged or separated from the designing Source.

> I also find the word Will to be adequate.  If the sense of Quality
> is one of attraction to another thing, then I have no problem with
> your statement.  If the source is that which we are not, then I
> don't understand you.

Mark, we cannot be the Absolute Source, nor a "piece" of such a source. 
This is true by definition.  The only possible alternative is that we (as 
value-sensible agents) are removed (negated) from the primary Source.  It's 
the only way we can be the free agents of value.  Is it really that you 
don't understand, or that you can't accept this proposition?  If it's the 
former, I'll try to explain it more simply, using analogy or logic, as 
necessary.  If it's the latter, I guess this is where we go our separate 
ways.

I do hope you will choose to stay in the ring with me.

Courage,
Ham