[MD] The Dynamics of Value

[118]

Hi John,
Thanks for joining in, I have missed your input.

On Sat, Jan 8, 2011 at 1:33 PM, John Carl <ridgecoyote at gmail.com> wrote:
[Mark]
>>  There appear to be two contrary positions as to its birth.  Either we
>>> are the source of value, or we are it's creation.
>>>
>>
> John:
>
> What happened to "codependent arising"?  That seems to me to be the only
> possible solution, since there is no possible "we" without value and there
> is no possible value without us.   Also Mark, I think this is more in line
> with your preference for a  Taoist perspective, which I also prefer, btw.

Yes, codependent arising, whatever that means, endless cycling into
emptiness without beginning.  I find that a good way to dismiss the
concept of source and move on.  However, what I am trying to impart is
a basic premise of Quality, that is often lost in this Western
Dialectic approach that is taken in this forum.  The Taoist
perspective is a holistic view which does indeed impart meaning, but
does not suite a discussion well, due to its forms of analogy.  It
goes more for the right side of the brain than the left, if you will.
My present approach is to convey the upending of Truth with Quality,
which is what lead Pirsig to his complete dissociation from reality,
and, which he came back to relate in ZMM.  So, for the purposes of
this post, I am exploring the differences between an objective and
subjective perspective of Value.  The objective view is: what we sense
as value, is a human perception of a larger Value.  We get the
mini-human values, which we say are ours, but are only appearances of
Value which exists without us.  The subjective would be, of course,
that value is personal, and due to our interaction with that outside.
It is the interplay between ourselves and the outside, which is felt,
isolated, within, perhaps by the soul, or whatever one can imagine as
the final feeler.
>
>>
> John:
>
> I would like to address both of you on the issue of "conscious agent" and
> "man" with the question, is it at all possible that intelligent life exists
> somewhere outside of humanity's experience?  If so, then it seems to me to
> make both your formulations inadequate as universal truth.  And even if not,
> even if man is alone in this vast cosmos, there are still animals which
> share our perception and a form of emotional reasoning  which expands the
> perceptions of value beyond the merely humanistic.  Methinks thou has
> wandered into anthropocentric reasonings.

[Mark]
I am not sure if you mean intelligent life as we as humans would
define it.  We are about 2 percent different from the apes
(genetically), yet we feel we are way superior in intelligence.  So,
something 10% different from us, would be outside our imagination.
For all we know, this could be a river.  So, I think we are speaking
of human truths.  We can say that they are human, because we make them
up.  An atom would not understand, nor care to understand the human
perspective.  To say that there is reasoning outside of the
anthropocentric sort, is like pointing to the wind as a form of
reasoning, which it may well be considered to be.  So, yes, it makes
sense to stay with what we humans can create.  It is also my
perspective that any universal truth is man-made, and does not exist
outside of our bubble.  This is not to say that things do not exist,
they do, but just not only from the human perspective.  Such a thing
is created through communication, and is like the buzzing of a bee
hive.  Not to diminish it, because it has great meaning to us.
>
> Mark:
>
>>  Perhaps someone should write The Tao of Motorcycle Maintenance.
>>> Oh, somebody already has.
>>
> John:
>
> One of my fab faves that I return to now and then is Benjamin Hoff's Tao of
> Pooh.  Perhaps my approach can be best understood then as trying to emulate
> the Uncarved Block - Absolute Simplicism, indeed.

[Mark]
Yes, good book.  I read it many years ago, along with its Piglet
counterpart (Te of Piglet I think).  I enjoyed it at the time, and
should reread it now that I am a little older.  I would like to hear
more about the uncarved block as it relates to MoQ (or as it relates
to anything for that matter).  We do tend to make things much more
complicated than they are, mainly because we are so important.
>
>
> But many thanks to you both for fair-minded and intelligent discourse. I
> 'preciate it like a jar of honey in front of the fire on a blustery day.
>
>
> John

[Mark]
Yeah, don't get your head stuck in it, and watch out for those Eeyores
around here, they are a little too deliberate.  There are also some
heffalumps that we try to ignore.

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
>