[MD] Quality and the Higgs Field: An Analogy

[118]

Hi Ham,
Your view and my view are not all that different.  One difference is,
however, where does quality arise?  You claim that man is the source
of value.  I state that man cannot create such a things, only
interpret it.  My premise is from a different perspective than yours,
looking at it from the other side.  I appreciate your point of view,
it puts man in a very high place as the creator of value.  My point of
view is one of interpretation of value, you could value something
which I throw away.  Such a difference still does not mean that we
each create our own value, just its interpretation.  More below.

On Sat, Jan 29, 2011 at 12:52 AM, Ham Priday <hampday1 at verizon.net> wrote:

[Ham]
> I'll admit to ignorance of the Higgs Field of quantum physics, except that
> the "boson particle" that is supposed to activate the field has never been
> detected.  So, like "dark matter" which fills another gap in cosmological
> understanding, I assume its existence is theoretical.  But I am concerned
> about the fallacious interpretation of Quality (Value) as an agent of
> creation.  The creative "agent" in my ontology is man himself, not the value
> he senses emotionally or aesthetically.

[Mark]
The purpose of the Higgs field was to provide an analogy which
presented my point of view.  Yes, it is all theory, all metaphysics,
all conjecture.  You bring up an incorrect interpretation of what I
term Sameness.  As presented by Higgs, there was a time when there
were no particles, everything existed as energy.  This is a result of
the math which suggests such a thing at very high temperatures.  In
order for masses of different sorts to be created (leptons and
quarks), Higgs presented a "field" which would do just that.  Without
the Higgs field, there would be no difference in particles, no
neutrons or protons or electrons for example.  There would be no such
thing as lead or gold.  Sameness does not exist now, because of the
Higgs field.  Again, this is just an analogy, it doesn't matter if the
Boson is "real" or not.  So, I am not splitting reality as sameness as
opposed to differentiated.  What I am presenting is what Quality does,
how it presents itself.  I have brought this up also in the Dynamics
of Value thread, as you know.

My question to you, would be: How does Man create Value where there
was none before?  Personally, I do not see any place or mechanism by
which this can be done.  Or, if you are suggesting that by some
miracle, Man can do such a thing, then I am left in the dark.
>
[Ham]
> In the first place, as Mark knows, I reject the notion (advanced by Pirsig)
> that "everything is Quality".  It is a philosopher's prerogative to
> euphemize what he believes to be a moral principle of the universe.
> Epistemologically, however, Quality is not an 'essence' or 'matrix field'
> that exists independently of awareness and has procreative power.  Rather,
> it is a relative measure of value attributed to an object or event by a
> conscious subject.  If it were not for the observer's realization of quality
> or value, it would not exist.

[Mark]
The statement that everything is Quality is misleading.  I could also
say that everything is Cheese, as I have done in a previous post.  The
statement only has meaning if we interpret it in a meaningful way.  My
stating that Quality can be analogized by a Higgs Field does not mean
that it is actually a field, just like wisdom is not really a horse in
Plato's analogy.  So, don't get caught up in that kind of thinking.
You state that Quality is a relative measure between two things.  I
state that Quality creates those two things.  Again, it is a different
perspective.  Let's take the analogy of a window.  What is a window?
Is it created by the frame, or does it create the frame?  (can you
have a frame without an empty part?)  Is a window, the perimeter, or
is it the hole in the middle?  These are two different perspectives of
the same thing.  These are perspectives that are also brought up by
Lao Tsu in Tao Te Ching.  The question is, which perspective has more
value (or Quality)?  Which provides some kind of metaphysics or
unifying principle?
>
[Ham]
> That quality is inherently differentiated is supported by Pirsig's signature
> theme: "Some things are better than others."  Indeed, if everything was
> perceived to be of the same quality, how would quality be recognized?

[Mark]
It wouldn't, Quality implies difference.  Everything is separated by
quality, it is the separation that we sense, not the things themselves
 What makes a staircase work, is not the steps themselves, but the
separation in height of the steps, the rise over run.  Each step looks
the same, but is separated by height.  The steps are not important, it
is their relative "quality" that gets us upstairs.
>
> Also, I fail to understand what has prompted Mark to insist that Quality is
> a "differentiator".  Since it is the conscious agent who realizes the Value
> of a given experience, it would seem to me that differentiation, like the
> gauge of beauty, is "in the eye of the beholder."  According to Mark,
> "Quality interacts with Sameness [to] provide us with morals and choices."
> He seems to be proposing a dichotomy of "Sameness" and "Difference" in which
> Quality plays the differential role.  (I wonder what sort of things he would
> classify under "sameness".)

[Mark]
Well, let me use the example of apples.  Let us say that there are a
dozen apples that are entirely identical (by some magic of genetic
engineering or something).  If you were asked to choose the apple of
highest quality, could you?  Now, if Man can create Value, why can he
not do so in this case?  This is because Man can only perceive value.

What is it that would make apples different?  This is the analogy of
the Higgs field.  As I have stated previously, things do not contain
value, they are separated by value (or Quality).  Therefore, Quality
is an active (yes, active) separator.  We appreciate that separation
in our own personal ways, that is interpretation, not creation.

We cannot create Morality.  How would we create such a thing?  Do we
wake up one day and say we are going to create some morality?  We
interpret it, it exists outside of us, and being human, we interpret
it in a human way.  We cannot create the wind by feeling it.  It
exists outside of us.  The brain is a bunch of nerves, not a Value
generator.  There are drugs like the general anesthetics which remove
all sense of value, they act physically on the brain.  This does not
mean that Value disappears when we are sedated, it just means that we
cannot interpret it.   If you are pointing to some non-material source
for Value generation, then you will have to explain that to me in a
bit more detail for me to get it.  The connection between thoughts and
nerve activity has a lot of support.  But I am open to all sorts of
notions with Quality.
>
[Ham]
> What differentates (separates) one thing from another is the space or void
> between them.  For me, this is nothingness.  We measure linear values with a
> ruler that separates units of length with dividing lines. We use a prism to
> separate the color values of white light.  Likewise, the keys of a musical
> instrument separate pitch values of the tonal scale when a melody is played.
> Thus, the differences that we experience valuistically are delineated by
> nothingness, not by the value or quality itself.  The nothingness that is
> impressed upon our experience does not come from the empty space of the
> physical universe but from the individual self, which (in my ontology) is a
> negation of the absolute source.

[Mark]
Again, I would state that what separates them is value or quality.
Just a different perspective.  What makes one key of a piano sound
different from another?  It is that which separates them.  Unless you
here two notes, there is no difference.  (This is similar to the one
hand clapping idea.  What is the sound of one hand clapping?  There is
no quality present there.  It is a symbol of unity or oneness.  It is
asked to create an "AHA, now I see what you mean".)  We do not create
the difference between the sounds of the notes, we only interpret
them.  Now, if one was tone deaf, or deaf, such interpretation would
be difficult.  This does not mean that the difference is not there.

You have stated that what separates us from Essence is Nothingness.
Now, Nothingness is kind of a meaningless word sometimes.  Isn't
Quality a much better separator?  At least it has substance, we can
feel it, it is real.  There is no need to have some kind of separation
from an imagined Absolute.  It is all here, all now.

Cheers, and thanks for participating in this forum.

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
>