[MD] The Dynamics of Value

[118]

Howdy Ham,

On Mon, Feb 28, 2011 at 2:24 PM, Ham Priday <hampday1 at verizon.net> wrote:

> By your analysis, sensing Quality is like blowing in the wind.  That's about
> all I can make of it.

[Mark]
Is that like "all we are is dust in the wind"? (and don't forget the
violin piece).

[Ham]
> 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.

[Mark]
Yes, this is what you say, it must have a referent source.  But, tell
me, why must it?  You state that it has to be this way, yet you offer
no argument as to why it must.  These premises of mine come before
Pirsig came out with his Metaphysics of Quality.  If anything, I am
honoring ZMM, but there is much more than that which goes into my
perception.  I have done my best to explain this to you.  What I
state, is that Quality results in a comparative valuation.  It is the
BASIS for such a valuation existing.  There is a big difference there,
and you know it.  If by your ontology I am calling Quality
nothingness, then so be it.
>
[Ham]
> 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?
>
[Mark]
What I have provided are many examples on why it is possible to view
Quality as a basis.  You choose to view the objects of this world as
the primary source for our feelings, I choose to view our feelings as
a primary source for our valuation.  There is a big difference.  I do
not see much support for your ontology apart from dictates.  If you
can point to this nothingness then fine, what is it that makes it more
than imaginary?  I, on the other hand can point directly to Quality,
as I have in many ways.

[Ham]
> 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.

[Mark]
When getting to the root of awareness, I lack words, and yours are as
good as anything I can come up with.  I understand the unique
perspective of the individual, which may be denoted as divorce from
something.  However, this comes from treating the world as made up of
objects.  Either your awareness is independent of everything else, or
it IS everything else.  It becomes everything else, when you immerse
yourself into what lies in between, not in the polar objective ends.
It is all one big interaction.  The perception of separation has
rhetorical importance and is important for conversing, but it need not
be what lies behind such objective notation.

I fully understand your immersion into the objective world, this seems
to be the predominant way of viewing the world, so it must come
easier.  What I am proposing is a different perspective which makes
everything much more clear and unifying.

One could suggest that your otherness is a picture which is being made
by your brain, so it is in fact a construct which you yourself make
and experience.  To a different type of brain, the world would look
completely different.  You are claiming this mirror which you carry
around has some attraction to you.  It is like you being attracted to
yourself.

The notion of consistency is only so because we are used to it and
thus use the word consistency.  Perhaps the consistency is the fact
that it is inconsistent.  This is the structure which language builds,
which is self-referential, and therefore internally consistent.  You
say you can project your reality on others, but perhaps I see the
color blue in a completely different way, and have learned to call it
"blue".  So don't be so sure about this projection.
>
[Ham]
> 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.

[Mark]
I would suggest that the universality of experience, as you state, is
a function of language, which is learned behavior.  Geez, we go to
school for at least 15 years to get this way.  We learn to communicate
in language, and because of this we prepare such communication in
language and call that thought.  I am proposing that there is
something more behind the objective language-based world, much more.

Yes, objective existence can be a true reality, so can that of
Quality.  Truth is whatever is agreed on.  There were too many loose
ends with the objective view, it is much simpler to view it through a
prism of Quality.  It is much more consistent and free of paradoxes.
That is all I am suggesting, a better truth if you want it.  I also
look to metaphysics for answers, and I am yet to understand how your
metaphysics answers the questions which you pose above.
>
[Ham]
> 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.

[Mark]
I am happy to hear more.  What I am interested in is the rhetoric
supporting your ontology.  One cannot simply say that it is so.
>
[Mark previously]
>> 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.
>
[Ham]
> Since I believe the nature of the human psyche is "value-sensibility, I
> don't think "outside" or "inside" applies or is even relevant.

[Mark]
My only point was that by using the term value-sensibility, you are
pointing to the sensing of Value.  Perhaps you meant it in a different
way, perhaps "value-creativity".  I believe this phrase may be more in
line with your ontology.
>
[Ham]
> 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?

Again, I get lost in your use of words here.  I know they have meaning
to you, but I do not comprehend something like "nothingize".  Why
don't you use the word create instead?  We do not actualize objects.
We interpret their existence from the quality separation.  Each object
has attributes, it is these attributes (based on quality) that we
consider.
>

>[Ham]
> 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.

[Mark]
There is really nothing to mock, so don't worry.  Are you saying that
a motorcycles' physicalness is more substantial than your awareness of
it?  I seriously doubt it.  To bring back Plato, your view of a
motorcycle is overlaid with all sorts of memories and concepts of
motorcycles, what they do, and what they stand for.  This is much more
than just looking at a hunk of metal on wheels.  Each object has
meaning, has quality, to you.  You do all of this through Quality,
every single bit.
>
[Ham]>
> 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.

[Mark]
You are simply using the word definition instead of design to denote
the same thing.  That thing is predetermined outcome, or determinism.
But, unfolding reality is not a function of any definition or
prefabricated ends, it is a function of active free will.  In terms of
finite existents, I think this concept would fall apart upon Socratic
questioning.  Our imagination could be considered infinite (whatever
that means).

[Ham]>
> 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.
>
[Mark]
If your definition is that we cannot be the Absolute source, then you
are quite correct, and I can't argue with you about this.  Also based
on your definition, the rest of your paragraph stands.  However, if I
do not accept this definition, then the whole concept falls apart.
Understanding implies agreement with the premises.  I have yet to get
there even though I twist them around to suit me.  Why do we have to
be apart from something at all?  Why is this a necessary precondition?
 Is there some pragmatic reason you can point to?  Is there some
similar occurrence in our daily affairs?  These are honest questions,
and not dismissive ones.


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

[Mark]
Oh, I am in the ring with you, I just have a different trainer and
style.  Don't know if this will go 12 rounds, I feel you are
faltering.
>
Keep your head up,
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
>