[MD] The Dynamics of Value

[118]

Howzit Ham?
Thanks for responding.  I have some comments below

On Sat, Mar 5, 2011 at 12:00 AM, Ham Priday <hampday1 at verizon.net> wrote:
>
> On Thurs, Mar 3, 2011 at 8:53 PM, Mark "118" <ununoctiums at gmail.com> wrote:
>
[Ham]>
> 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?

[Mark]
We seem to be talking across each other here.  A universe can be
absolutely moral, but have different types of morals, no?  When we
create a spectrum of quality or value, we tend to observe a hierarchy
of such.  That is something can have more value than another thing.
That is all that I mean by level of goodness (i.e. how good is it).
This was in response to your comment from March 3 "In an all-good
universe, goodness would be undetectable."  So, in response to this I
state that goodness can be detected in an all good universe, or a
universe composed of morality, because of the dynamic nature of such.
Perhaps these conversations are getting too disjointed.

In terms of what Pirsig states, please remember that he provides
analogies.  He doesn't mean that there really are levels such as you
state.  He simply says that Quality can be viewed as such.  I think
you may be trying to find truths here, rather than rhetoric, and you
mistake these levels for reality.  Just try to keep in mind what the
metaphysics of quality is, before you apply a logical knife to it.
>

> 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.

[Mark]
It must be the way I write for you to interpret me as what you state
above.  So, once again, let me be clear.  Quality creates the relative
measurements.  First comes Quality, then comes our humans
measurements.  Measurements are imaginary and depend on what we
perceive of Quality.  Quality is what allows us to differentiate.  Let
me use the example of a bad apple and a good apple, once again.  The
only reason there is a bad one and a good one, is because of Quality.
We do not create the difference between these apples, it already
exists.  It is interpreted in our minds as a difference in Quality.
So rather than look at the two apples, what I am suggesting is looking
at what makes them distinct.  This can be done with everything.

Your stating that Value is the essence of experience, would be the
same thing that I am saying.  Value makes experience, not the other
way around.
>
[Ham]
> 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.

[Mark]
I do not ascribe the source as something other than what we are
present in.  I cannot conceive of some mysterious side.  We make up
the source, it is not separate from us.  The philosophy is a
reflection of how we interpret what we see.  Mine is a practical
philosophy, and empiricism plays a part, however learning plays a part
as well, since empiricism must be interpreted.  The interpretation is
a creation.
>

> 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.

[Mark]
I would agree that such "thought experiments" often are not very
informative.  It was just an attempt at an analogy.  I certainly did
not reach my conclusions based on those stories.  I performed an
analysis on what language is, and how I use it.  In my opinion, it is
purely a result of society, and its only use is for communication.
When we communicate, we use a subject object form.  We do not use that
when we are not communicating.  Take an exhilarating white water trip
down the Colorado, and see how often you are thinking subject/object.
If you are thoroughly involved, you become the river, and then convert
it to subject-object so that you can tell about it.
>
>
> 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 apologize for bring that term up again.  What I mean is the part of
thinking which forms a symbol out of something so that it can be
related.  This is the final part of the intellectualization process,
and is done for purposes of communicating.  We humans do this through
symbols.  Perhaps I have read too much Jung, but it makes sense to me.
>
>
> 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.

[Mark]
I do not see this as a nihilistic view, I find it exhilarating and
compelling.  Quality is enough, and more than enough.  I have no need
to try to consider what came before it, or what made it.  This seems
to just relegate the divine to somewhere else.  This, right now, is
the primary source, it is absolutely incredible and astonishing.  It
is the most extravagant primary source that can be conceived.  It
keeps growing and changing and providing the ecstasy of life.  It IS,
and we get to be here as part of it.  Try reading Eckhart or some of
the other mystics again, they are far from nihilistic.  But, I am just
presenting my view, and there is no attempt to crack a nut.  I find
your view interesting as far as I understand it.
>
> I'll give you an 'A' for effort, anyway.  I know you've said more, but now I
> must rest.

[Mark]
Thanks for the grade and your patience.

All the best
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
>