[MD] The other side of Value

[Ham Priday]

G'day Mark --


> Hi Ham,
> Bet you knew I would reply as your old nemesis.  Thanks for
> trying to harmonize, it is the same thing that I attempt.  I will
> provide some input into your topic and try to stay rational.

You are not my "nemesis", Mark ...just a rational thinker who has swallowed 
too much of the Quality doctrine.

[Ham previously]:
> Quality is a common label that we apply to objects, merchandise,
> and experiences that we sense as virtuous, good, or worthy in
> some way. Pirsig's philosophy is, at its core, a cosmology of
> Goodness. But it also points to something else -- the "motivational
> power" of Value that transcends experience. How can motivation
> extend beyond human experience?  This, I submit, is the question
> the MoQ fails to address.

[Mark]:
> This is one way to describe Quality.  If you think about it, all we
> can sense is the quality of something.  That is, how it is expressed.
> We have no notion of the actual thing itself, only its interaction
> with us.  In this way, Quality is at the interface of us and something
> else.

Well put, Mark.  We only sense the quality of something, which is its Value 
to us.  We turn this Value into experience by objectifying (actualizing) it 
in the space/time world.  But this is only OUR side of the Value (Quality) 
interface, so we don't see the whole picture.

> In terms of your second point.  I have made clear that such motivation
> extends way beyond human experience, and what we sense is the
> "humanized" variety of such motivation.  Such motivation is held at
> all levels, just look at the behavior of a gas introduced into a vacuum.
> Motivation is, as you say, a component of MoQ.  It is a driving force
> of Quality.  I will leave it at that for now and await some comments.

That is not what I meant by "extending beyond".  I wasn't inferring that 
gases in a vacuum, metals in a magnetic field, or trees and vegetables are 
"consciously motivated".  What I meant by "the motivational power of Value 
that transcends experience" is that the cosmic principles which direct the 
behavior of physical phenomena are imbued in the Value from which our 
experience of process is derived.  The forces we intellectualize as Boyle's 
Law, gravity, and electro-dynamics in our experiential world are the 
teleological counterparts of Essential Value which transcends finitude.  In 
other words, there is no need to revert to animism in explaining the 
processes of Nature.

[Ham]:
> Mr. Pirsig has told us that Quality (Value) is not an attribute
> of either things or the apprehending self.  It exists in its own
> threshold, independently of the patterns that constitute the
> universe and the beings that experience it.  He claims it is
> indefinable, yet insists it is the moral ground of reality.
> How does he know that the universe is a "moral system"?
> What evidence does he provide that its evolution progresses
> to betterness?  And what is the final result or goal of this
> process?  Indeed, is it ever attained?

[Mark]:
> I am not sure of this rendition of Quality since Quality can be
> subdivided.  Qualities are expressed by all, that is how we know
> it is there.  But I have agreed to leave that part of MoQ out.
>
> Quality is part of the patterns, not separate.  It is what creates
> experience.  Again, think about it, all we experience are qualities.
>
> The world can be viewed as a moral system since it is a driving force
> within us humans.  We are expressing the human equivalent of
> Morality.  It is, as stated, not only a human value.
>
> Again, I will say that we cannot get something from nothing.  We
> cannot make morality up.  We can certainly experience its force,
> which is what we do.
>
> The notion of "betterness" becomes highly teleological.  This is also
> a problem with defining evolution through "that which survives".  So,
> such a notion of betterness can be said to arise out of our personal
> relationship with the universe.  This betterness is part of our
> make-up in our daily actions.  We can therefore postulate that it is
> something that exists.

I would say that we do "make morality up", but pehaps that's because I have 
a different concept of Morality that you're using in this argument.  Man's 
morality (i.e., humanism, individual liberty, social justice, 'do unto 
others...', etc.) is a code of behavior rationalized by humans for the 
preservation of civilization.  Our concept of "betterness" (morality) may be 
the "human equivalent" of value-sensibility; however, it is not directly 
imposed on us by Value (Quality).  Every culture develops its own "morality 
system", which demonstrates that "betterness" is open to free choice.

[Ham]:
> Let's assume that there is a "perfect entity" which we can
> only know as differentiated otherness. ...
> We know this shadow-world must
> represent something "real", but we can't discern what that
> reality is.  Instead we measure the shadows, observe their
> behavior, give them proper names, study their dynamics
> and theorize their causes. Through it all, we yearn for the
> essence of their being. In short, we want the essence of
> being for ourselves.

[Mark]:
> Yes, Quality is a perfect entity, expressed perfectly in the moment.
> But I am fine with your otherness as well, since it can be reduced to
> the same thing.
>
> The moment cannot be sub-divided, therefore Occam's Razor
> does not apply.

I don't know what "expressed perfectly in the moment" means.  There is 
nothing "perfect" in man's limited sensibility or experience.  Perfection 
can be no more than a conceptualized ideal in the human mind, whether 
momentary or cumulatively conceived.

> The shadows which we see are cast by Quality.

The shadows are our "experiential representation" of Value.  We ourselves, 
not Quality (Value), are the actualizers of our reality.

> Yes, as with Buddhist thought, we sense an incompleteness in what
> we experience (also mistakenly termed "suffering").  We want to
> experience Quality as ourselves, which is what is achieved through
> disciplinary mindfulness and Yoga.  Many people have done this,
> and do not just dream about it.  Therefore, such yearning can come
> to an end once it is achieved.  This is what Zen is all about; uniting
> with your essence, and not having to be dead to do it.

Again, I would say that it isn't Quality so much as its "essence" that we 
seek, and we can only approach it through our realization of Value.

> I would not speak of all mankind in this way, but you are correct
> that some seek such fulfillment.

You don't think we ALL do?  Consider the goals and ends toward which we all 
strive.  Are they not all expressions of that longing or aspiration for what 
lies beyond our valuistic experience?  We may not all be consciously aware 
of our estranged Source, per se.  Some think of it as the desire for power 
or celebrity; others equate it with more romantic notions; but how can we 
account for human motivation other than being driven by our sense of Value?

> Yes, we represent Quality in its human form.  In this way, we are
> Quality.  Differentiation is not the norm in our daily lives.  Only a
> small part of our experience is subject to differentiation.  This
> conversation being one of those.  Your heart is one with the universe.

No, Mark.  Human beings are not "Quality in its human form."  Far from it. 
We are but a sieve through which Value passes, only an infinitesimal portion 
of which is realized and seized or acted upon as our "value complement". 
The infinite remainder is One in Essence.

> Difference is the MO of Quality.  That is why it is called that.  It
> provides Qualities.  We are not separated from it in my opinion
> except perhaps consciously.  Instead we are in tune with the whole.
> Part of the harmony.
>
> Meaning is provided to us, we cannot create such things.
> Nothing from Nothing.

Again I take exception to the notion that "meaning is provided to us".  The 
meaning of life is always relative to the cognitive agent.  Working that out 
for one's self is the very purpose of human existence.  Indeed, if meaning 
were fixed and automatic, the individual would have no choice but to behave 
as Nature mandates.  No, Mark; freedom of choice is man's most precious 
asset.

[Ham]:
> On the other side of sensible value lies the uncreated, unmoved
> and Absolute Source of this individually cognized world of
> appearances.  Value realization is "essential" in two ways:
> It is a sensible derivation of the Source; and it is our inextricable
> connection with the Source. Therefore, it follows that whatever
> future awaits us when we have departed this life is "valuistic" in nature.

[Mark]:
> Well, you know I don't see this, but I am willing to try to harmonize
> it.  The world of appearances is what Quality provides, again, that is
> why it is named as such.
> Certainly what awaits us is valuistic, in the same way as what
> preceded us.  If it wasn't we wouldn't be here right now.  What Value!

Why it is named as such?  Who has named Quality as the world of appearances? 
I don't recall that definition in Pirsig's writings.  What preceded us 
cannot have been our Value (quality), because we were not there to realize 
it.  Remember my maxim: Unrealized Value is an oxymoron.  Value realization 
is proprietary to the individual subject.

I still see RMP's handwriting on everything you say.

Here's to less Quality and more Essence!

Essentially spoken,
Ham