[MD] The other side of Value

[Joseph Maurer]

On 5/23/11 12:13 PM, "118" <ununoctiums at gmail.com> wrote:
<snip>
> [Mark]
> With this last statement you return to the subject matter of the
> thread as presented by Ham.  Ham speaks clearly of attraction, which I
> fully support.  One interpretation of Love could be such attraction.
> This would agree with Essentialism, and in fact I agree with you.  Ham
> has refined this by presenting "love for", which makes more sense in
> this forum.  As such the experience of love is Ham's attraction.  To
> complete the analogy, Ham rightfully envisions an object of love which
> is located on the other side.  While we disagree on how this is
> presented, I agree with him whole-heartedly (pun intended).
> 
> I also agree with your inclusion of emotions in the DQ set and
> intellect in the SQ set.  I am not sure if you agree with me who
> agrees with you.
<snip>

Hi Mark,

I disagree with Ham stating that the format for metaphysics is essentialism.
I prefer Pirsig's DQ/SQ format which gives the nod to evolution.  For me it
is hard to envision DQ/SQ in an essentialist format.  I find it more
compelling to see DQ/SQ in an existential format, evolution, levels in
existence.

Joe