[MD] The Dynamics of Value

[118]

Hi Ham,
Thanks for the endeavor.  I will add some comments for my
clarification.  If we were sitting discussing in a diner somewhere in
the middle of the Mojave (for example), I would be interrupting for
clarification in the same way.  So bear with me, it is not meant to be
argumentative.

On Sun, Jan 9, 2011 at 9:18 PM, Ham Priday <hampday1 at verizon.net> wrote:
> Greetings Mark, also to Tim and John who are "watching" --
>
> This will be my first monograph specifically addressing the dynamics of
> Value as viewed from the Essentialist perspective.
>
> Lest I be accused of straying too far from the MoQ, I should like to point
> out that the SOM perspective has been in contention on this forum for as
> long as I have followed it.  I believe Essentialism offers a credible way to
> reconcile these two "modes of reality" and provide a valid metaphysical
> foundation for Pirsig's Quality thesis.  In order to achieve this, however,
> it will be necessary to conceptualize the MoQ fundamentals somewhat
> differently than the author presented them, which calls for stricter
> definitions of the basic terms, including some which the author either
> failed or declined to explain.
>
> I have already suggested to Mark that the meaning of "exists" is paradoxical
> when applied to metaphysics.  Individuals and things relate to each other in
> existence, and are appropriately termed 'existents'.  Quality (Value) is not
> an existent, nor is the primary source from which it is derived.  How we
> express this distinction linguistically influences how we conceptualize
> Reality.  In effect, there are two "realities" -- empirical and ultimate.
>
> Rather than acknowledge an ultimate Reality, the MoQ posits a Dynamic/Static
> split between "pure" Quality and the Quality that is experienced empirically
> (as "patterns").  According to A. McWatt's Ph.D. doctorial thesis, "Pirsig
> thought 'Quality' was better divided metaphysically into the Dynamic and
> static - primarily because the aesthetic, mystic and scientific aspects of
> reality can be taken account of by this dichotomy and, as the Dynamic is the
> essential nature of the static, there remains, essentially, only one reality
> of Quality, not two."

[Mark]
It is my understanding that Quality is split into the static and
dynamic as a tool in rhetoric, to better convey the MoQ.  It cannot be
taken literally, or as a truth.  What I sense you are stating is that
reality can be divided into subjective and objective components.
There is no reason not to divide it this way, as it points to the mind
body dichotomy.
>
> The logic of the notion that "Dynamic is the essential nature of the static"
> escapes me.  Moreover, the postulation of Quality as an entity unto itself,
> independent of conscious discernment or relative measurement, refutes the
> epistemology that "something cannot be valued without a consciousness".  The
> need for conscious realization does not mean there is no value without a
> conscious agent.  But it does mean, as Pirsig himself noted, that what is
> not valued (positively or negatively) does not exist.  We know this because
> all the properties of 'beingness' are valuistic; that is, sensible to the
> individual who experiences them.  Empirical reality is known only in terms
> of the values we are capable of experiencing and the conclusions we
> intellectualize from this experience.

[Mark]
My take on the encompassing of the static within the dynamic is that
Quality is expressed in what appears to be temporal pockets (static).
However, this expression must have a dynamic origin.  I agree with
your statement of empirical reality, I would also term this subjective
reality.
>
> The philosophy of Essence starts, not with quality or experience, but with
> the premise 'ex nihilo nihil fit' [nothing comes from nothingness],
> attributed to Lucretius.  It posits Essence as the "absolute potentiality"
> of all that is or appears to be.  Essence encompasses the "virtues" of
> Sensibility, Order, Beauty, Truth, and Goodness, as well as their antonyms,
> in the Oneness.of an uncreated Source.  So that these values may be realized
> from the perspective of an "other", and since there is no other within or
> outside of Essence, conscious agents come into existence by negation from
> (rather than as an addition to) an omnipotent source.  The order and
> dynamics of relational existence reflect the perfect balance of the Absolute
> Source, while its qualitative properties represent Essential Value
> differentiated by the negated self whose proprietary nature is
> value-sensibility.

[Mark]
Much as I hate to bring this up, the balance you speak of is somewhat
Taoist.  I say this only in that I agree with you, and will drop
further reference.  A physical analogy which I think may also lend
something to your paragraph is the creation and destruction of
particles.  These particles arise from nothing (literally) and
complement each other.  The electron and the positron are one such
example, however every particle that we envision has its counterpart.
The creation and rapid destruction of such particles can be seen in
large colliders.  Energy and mass must be conserved (as far as we are
concerned), so particles and anti-particles must be formed at the same
time.  One way that I explain this, is seeing nothing as a flat line,
and every now and again, a heart beat is noted.  We exist in the
non-flat line part.  In this way, your absolute source would be a flat
line which is capable of being anything, but such anything must be
balanced


>
> The primary dichotomy of existence is not Static/Dynamic but
> Sensibility/Otherness; and otherness is objectivized experientially from the
> Value realized by the cognizant agent.  The only "split" or division of the
> Source is its potentiality to create "otherness" negationally.  That
> Essence-denied versus Essence-affirmed is the paradigm of creation suggests
> that there is a valuistic purpose for man's existence.  The Essential
> ontology affords each individual self the freedom to create its own reality
> within the parameters of a predetermined relational system.  Thus, the self
> may be understood as the uniquely sensible agent whereby Essence is
> completed or "perfected" by an extrinsic perspective of Value.

[Mark]
Here you divide reality (for lack of a better term) into the physical
and the relational.  It can be said that gravity is relational,
whereas a planet and sun is physical.  The relational gives rise to
value, but requires this to relate.  A planet needs a sun to feel
gravity.  I am not quite sure about the purpose part.  This sounds a
little deterministic to me.  However, this is just nitpicking at this
point, and requires further conversation.  There is no reason to think
that we do not have free will, even if we are determined in such a way
as to think that we have free will; free will is a human concept, and
we certainly have that.
>
> It is my hope that this ontology will be viewed as a metaphysical extension
> of Pirsig's Quality thesis, rather than an attempt by an "antagonist" to
> invalidate the MoQ for his own purposes.  I anticipate questions and
> criticisms from Mark, and others who may be "standing by", which I shall try
> to answer to the best of my ability.

[Mark]
As I see it, you are creating a dichotomy which could perhaps be
included in a Metaphysics of Quality.  If the physical is static
quality, and the relational is dynamic quality, then perhaps these
could be paired off.  It is also possible that the two are
incompatible.  Even with your ontology, it would appear that your
division is somewhat intertwined.  What we are perhaps attempting is
the creation of the best rhetoric with which to convey a metaphysics
which contains Value.  I am not stuck on one way or the other by any
means.

Hope I don't put you off with my neophytic understanding.
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
>