[MD] The Dynamics of Value

[Andre Broersen]

Marsha to Andre:

I was thinking this morning that Ham's point-of-view seems confined to and represents the Intellectual Level, but that would be still within the MoQ.

Andre:
You mean Ham's expose of his 'Essence' is an intellectual pattern of value? Surely it does not represent it! I'm sure the latter is not what you mean. But, of course such an intellectual pattern exists(as sq) and is therefore included in the MOQ. Whether it has high, low or even negative quality depends, once again, upon its economy and explanatory power.

This is what led Pirsig away from a subject-object analysis because he argued that experience cannot be 'contained' by these two conceptualizations and is, by the way, also why James developed his radical empiricism...a pluralistic universe...a philosophy which must (as he insisted) take into account a full variety of experiences ( and most definitely the so called 'illogical' ones). But this refers back to my previous post to Ham regarding the scientific approach to value. That which doesn't 'fit' the scientific paradigm is not important, is subjective and therefore has no value.

Both want a philosophy/metaphysics that takes into account , as much as possible, the full variety of everything 'exposed' through experience. Hence, of course also the change of the romantic/classic split (ZMM) into Dynamic and static. But Pirsig has explained this in LILA.

Mind you, I don't know how popular Ham's Essence is. For all I know his is a culture of one, though the idea of 'essence' dates back to(arguably)Plato. MOQ's intellectual level 'contains' many different philosophies so why should this one be excluded?

Marsha:
How dangerous to demand that MoQ definitions be 'absolutely' NOT this or that.

Andre:
Not that I am aware of having claimed this I hope the above clarifies my reasoning.