[MD] The other side of Value

[Ham Priday]

Joe and Andre --

Since Joe has directed your recent exchange to me, I've added some comment 
below.

[Joe to Ham]:
> Andre, (who thinks the title of this thread is rather funny, but ah,
> to Ham, anything possible): Yes, Quality is defined when referring to sq. 
> But actually it is not defined...it is given shape through the 
> abstracting..
> When you are intellectualizing about it.
> When you are experiencing... it is 'undefined'.'It' just flows.
>
> Joe:
> Undefined does not mean unknown.
>
> Andre:
> True Joe, but I would prefer perhaps the expression; experienced but
> not defined. At some level you 'know' but it is impossible to assign any
>: intellectual process to it that would 'capture' it. Any concepts or
> representation...other than by analogy... and that even leaves much
> to be desired.
>
> Joe:
> The intellect requires defined terms for logic SQ.
>
> Andre:
> I hope you mean 'logic' within a MOQ sense as expounded in LILA.

It's no wonder Andre thinks "the other side of Value" is a funny title.  You 
guys are so
busy twisting epistemology into an SOM pretzel, you never give a thought to 
what Value is.  All of this discourse concerning definitions, reification, 
intellection, and logic only complicates the ontology unnecessarily, adding 
to the confusion.

Has the thought ever occurred to either of you that Value is the 
individual's attraction to the uncreated Source?  (I guess not, since you 
don't acknowledge a source.)  Let me simplify it for you.

Quality (Value) has no generative power and doesn't exist in the absence of 
a sensible agent to realize it.  You and I are the value-sensible agents. 
All experience is valuistic.  The things we experience are objectivized 
representations of the Value we sense.  (That's why Pirsig calls them 
"Quality patterns".)  The act of experience differentiates value 
incrementally into the phenomenal order we call existence.  The "other side" 
of Value is its uncreated Source.

Value doesn't just spring up from nothingness.  It's an aspect of the 
unconditional Source -- the only essential aspect that we can experience. 
Absolute Essence has the power to negate the appearance of an "other".  We 
are the cognizant agents of this appearance.  We sense Value because of our 
affinity for Essence; we experience reality as otherness because we are 
estranged from the source of Value.  We gratify our desire for the Absolute 
Source by turning Value into the "finite desiderata" of experience.  Our 
role as free agents is to realize the Value of Essence by bringing it into 
existence as differentiated being.

This may strike you as a radical departure from the official MoQ doctrine. 
But you'll have to admit it's a much simpler ontology to comprehend.

Thanks for the opportunity, gentlemen,

Essentially speaking,
Ham