[MD] The Dynamics of Value

[Ham Priday]

On Thurs, Mar 3, 2011 at 8:53 PM, Mark "118" <ununoctiums at gmail.com> wrote:

> Saludos Ham,
> "Welcome back again, to the Show that never ends"

[snip]

> What I think you mean by an all good universe, is an undifferentiated
> universe.  Since we operate by Yin Yang methods we created the
> term "bad".  However, if all Being is Good, then we are simply
> discussing levels of goodness.  It is these levels of goodness which is
> sensed.  Why?  Because of Quality.

No, what I mean is an "absolutely moral" universe.  Differentiation is 
irrelevant to the "goodness", and I don't know what a "level of goodness" 
would be in an all-good universe.  Are you perchance suggesting the 
organic/inorganic/social/intellectual heirarchy as levels of goodness?

> Objects cannot stand alone, they must be differentiated through
> Quality.  A relational world is the result of Quality.  Through the
> principles of Quality we ascribe differences to things, and are able
> to formulate choices based on this apparition of Quality.

Your maxim seems to be: Quality differentiates a reality of Goodness.  How 
do you distinguish goodness from quality?

[Ham, previously]:
> You can point to that which supports your valuation of Quality,
> but not Quality itself. Where is the Quality when you're not pointing?
> What happens to Quality when there is nothing to point to, or when
> there is no one to point? Quality exists only as a comparative
> valuation by a sensible agent.  In short, it's a subjective comparison
> of relational experience

[Mark]
> On the contrary, I can point or sense Quality directly, that is what
> we do.  Provide me a good apple and a bad apple and I will show
> you quality without pointing.  I can show you Quality everywhere.
> This is a little different from the mysterious Absolute source, or the
> unfathomable concept of negation.  There is no mysterious side to
> Quality, it is all here, right now!  Quality cannot disappear.  Does
> the world "disappear" when you close your eyes?  If you say yes,
> then you have concepts that I cannot relate to.

Again, you are using Quality as a relative measurement, like temperature or 
pressure.  What is the "essence" (if I may) of Pirsigian reality if it is 
not Quality?   I can say that Value is the essence of experience, despite 
the fact that Value is measurable.  But if Quality only differentiates, what 
is it differentiating?  And, yes, the world disappears for me when I close 
my eyes.  But since it is retained in my memory as an experiential 
construct, I do not lose sight of it even when I sleep.  However, my 
universe will vanish when I die because the value-sensibility that 
constructs it will cease to be.

[Ham, previously]:
> Why is awareness an either/or proposition? Obviously we are not 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?

[Mark]:
> You are right, I did not mean to create a choice there, my bad.  We
> are the primary source, or at least part of it if you want to create
> objects.  We are the big bang, we are infinity (or at least part of it).
> I am also connected to this overall source valuistically, it is because
> I can discriminate Quality.  I do not see how we can create our own
> value construct.  This is another area of your ontology I am baffled by.
> How does this creation happen?  What are the building blocks, and
> how are they put together?

If we are one part of the primary source, and the objective universe 
constitutes the remainder, then you are equating existence to the source. 
The net result of this premise is that there is no source, and no need for 
Quality. (No need for philosophy, either, I would assume.)  Essentially you 
have posited the universe as empirical science describes it.

The "building blocks" of my ontology are 1) the space/time dimensions and 
dynamic principles intrinsic to Absolute Essence, 2) the 
negational/valuistic relation that creates and supports a cognitive other 
(agent), and 3) the value-sensibility of the agent which actualizes 
(objectifies) beingness.  These essential contingents interact so as to 
produce the appearance of being-in-process, or what we perceive as an 
evolving universe in which we participate.

[Ham]:
> 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?

[Mark]
> Yes, if you want to carry out this statement to possible meanings.  We
> would not perceive objects in the way we do now.  We would not
> create some kind of Aristotelian categorization, and false notion of sets.
> Objects would simply be an extension of ourselves.  I have brought up
> the thought experiment of somebody brought up by wolves to illustrate
> this.  Without communication and another to do this with, we have no
> sense of ourselves as distinct.  Everything would radiate from the
> inside out, and there would be no mirror.  So, to answer your
> question, Yes, absolutely.

I have never been convinced that individual identity and self-awareness are 
invalidated by the "isolated on an island" or "raised by wolves" theory. 
That human existence and objects may be perceived differently under these 
hypothetical conditions does not confirm the notion that subject/object 
relations are socially produced.

[Ham]:
> 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.)

[Mark]:
> I think you would be surprised if you meditated on this long enough
> and thought it out.  At least that is what I did.  Without language we
> would certainly have other ways to exist together, so I did not mean
> to give you that impression.  Most of our interaction is without
> language, probably through mechanisms that are still to be discovered
> by the symbolic brain and therefore "known".

I respectfully disagree that conceptualization and intellection are not 
possible without language.  Man's development of language itself was a 
conceptual achievement, as was his invention of logic and mathematics.  And 
what, pray tell, is the "symbolic brain"?

[Mark]
> I am not sure what "pure quality" is, unless it is everything.  You
> remember as a child those pictures that would be invisible but come
> to life when water was added, colors and all?  That is what Quality
> does.  Quality provides the color and differentiation.  We see things
> due to their qualitative aspects.  The difference between DQ and SQ
> is presented for rhetorical purposes, don't be mislead to think they
> really exist.  I will think of a few more analogies to help this add
> up for you.

Then Quality cannot be either the ground of existence or exist prior to 
existence.  Whence cometh existence by this nihilistic view?  I'm afraid it 
would take more than further analogies to dispel my belief in a primary 
source, Mark.  The hardest nut to crack is a firm conviction.  That's what 
you're challenging.

I'll give you an 'A' for effort, anyway.  I know you've said more, but now I 
must rest.

Have a pleasant weekend,
Ham