[MD] The Dynamics of Value

[Ham Priday]

Greetz and Howdy, Mark --

On Mar 3, 2011 at 1:20AM, Mark "110" <ununoctiums at gmail.com> wrote:

> Yes, this is what you say, [Quality] 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.

Mark, in common parlance, the terms Excellence, Virtue, Goodness, Value, and 
Quality all presuppose a comparative reference.  In an all-good universe, 
goodness would be undetectable.  The same is true of an absolutely moral 
universe or a universe of the "highest Quality".   It is man who realizes 
Quality, and he defines it in a scale of "high" or "low" relative to his 
experience of a diversity of phenomena.  Quality cannot stand alone; its 
valuation (measurement) is possible only in a relational world where, as 
Pirsig says, "some things are better than others."  Hence, neither Quality 
nor Value alone logically qualifies as the Primary Source.  Also, just in 
case you're serious, Nothingness accounts for nothing.  You and I wouldn't 
be here if we depended on nothingness as the source of our existence.

> 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.

You can point to that which supports your valuation of Quality, but not 
Quality itself.  Where is the Quality when you're not pointing?  Nowhere. 
What happens to Quality when there is nothing to point to, or when there is 
no one to point?  It disappears.  Quality exists only as a comparative 
evaluation by a sensible agent.  In short, it's a "comparative" 
interpretation of relational experience

> 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.

Why is awareness an either/or proposition?  Obviously we are not--cannot 
be--the Primary Source.  But how about my awareness being dependent on a 
primary source to which I'm connected valuistically, everything else being 
my own value construct?  Is that concept too much of a stretch from Pirsig's 
DQ --> SQ patterns thesis?

> 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.

You're saying that the experiential perception of a physical world is only a 
semiotic reality supported by language.  Does this mean that if we didn't 
communicate in word symbols, we would not perceive objects?

> 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.
>
> 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.

No contest here, Mark.  The image of the world "made by my brain" is indeed 
unique to me, as your worldview is unique to you.  That's what makes us all 
different.  Again, the cosmic order, relational aspects, dynamic principles, 
and space/time dimensions are valuistic attributes of the Primary Source 
which afford us universal correspondence.  In other words, we all experience 
and participate in the "same world" but in a different way.  This provides 
an "infinity of perspectives" at the outer periphery of an absolute (i.e., 
undivided) source.  Does this not make sense to you?

> 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.

I don't know about you, but my "objective world" is not something I learned 
in school.  Nor would it vanish if I never learned to read or speak.  The 
semiotic notion that we wouldn't exist in a common universe without language 
is as nonsensical as pure solipsism.  (And it has nothing to do with the MoQ 
vs. SOM worldview.)

> 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.
>
> 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.

When I say that existence is a "valuistic" system, I mean that it is 
constructed (actualized) from our primary value-sensibility.  We don't 
create the Value; we realize it psycho-emotionally.  Through experience we 
differentiate our perception of Value and bring it into existence as a 
relational order of beingness (things in time and space).

> 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.

I don't use "create" because there is only one Creator, and we are not it. 
"Nothingize" was a made-up word in an attempt to convey to meaning of 
"negate" (which experience does).  I don't see how it is possible to 
"interpret" the existence of things by "separating" pure quality.  If the 
physical forms and parameters by which this separation occurs do not exist 
in quality, how to we get them?  If they are imbued in quality, then Quality 
(DQ) is not monolithic but differentiated (SQ) at all times.  And where do 
the attributes of objects that we ourselves differentiate come from?  The 
epistemology here simply doesn't add up.

> 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.

Memory is part of my conscious awareness, so I rely on past images to 
recognize the quality and purpose of a motorcycle or any other object.  This 
recall and valuation is a function of my intellect, not quality.  Now, if 
Quality = Everything, and I and the motorcycle are simply patterns of 
quality, the only ontogeny needed is to explain the differentiation of a 
pattern.  But you've told me you don't subscribe to the pattern concept, so 
I see no foundation for the idea that Quality accounts for everything, 
patterned or not.

[Ham, previously]:
> 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 design is only a roadmap for existence,
> not the pavement, vehicles, and people traversing it.  Moreover,
> 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).

To posit the unfolding cosmos as a function of my (or anybody else's) free 
will is carrying human arrogance to a new extreme, thus making gods of us 
all.  Surely you don't believe that we "will" the evolutionary order, 
eugenics, natural and physical laws, and dynamics of the universe -- or that 
we could even "imagine" such unknown complexity!

> 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.

Mark, do you really think you are the Absolute Source, or that you can 
divide what is absolute into finite parts?  If you believe the primary 
source is nothingness, then there is no need to define it in terms of 
Quality and you can accept reality as you experience it.  After all, this is 
what Science does, and objective materialism is the prevailing worldview 
these days.  Again, I must return to my fallback position: Nothing comes 
from nothingness.  Quality is not a thing; it is a comparative valuation of 
things.  We do not create ourselves, and neither does Quality.  Things exist 
because we actualize them from differentiated value.  Value (Quality) does 
not arise from probability nor stand by itself.  It is that aspect of the 
essential Source which accounts for all being, actualized or "real".

> 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.

I'm not faltering, I'm just stymied by your resistance to common sense.

Try a little more contemplation ;-),
Ham