[MD] relative

[MarshaV]

Hello Ham,

Sent from my iPad

On Jan 13, 2012, at 1:57 AM, "Ham Priday" <hampday1 at verizon.net> wrote:

> Hi Joe --
> 
>> Hi Ham and All,
>> 
>> Your enthusiasm is catching!  Your emphasis on the "anthropocentric universe
>> in which man is the decision-maker" can only leave me humbled.  How can I as
>> an individual possibly have a connection to the stars?  They are beautiful!
>> For some reason I am in tears! I think it is your eloquence.  I realize we
>> are older and our time is growing shorter but Ham you sure know how to light
>> a fire.  I am just sorry it has taken me so long to respond.
> 
> Thanks for the compliment, Joe.  I doubt my "eloquence" but am glad the enthusiasm comes through because I need it to convince the Pirsigians that "interrelated patterns" doesn't do justice to Value or man's sensibility of it.  And, although you accept the concept of anthropocentricity, they are persuaded that man is only a patterned reflection of undefinable DQ.
> 
> Admittedly, I have a not-so-secret agenda here, which is to advance the theory that man's sensibility actually _creates_ Value, as opposed to being a socio-intellectual pattern of it.  This, of course, will greatly disturb Pirsig's acolytes for whom Quality is the Primary Reality.  My justification for this epistemology is that there is no Value without a sensible agent to realize it.  To use your example, where is the beauty of the stars when there is no one to observe it?  If that beauty has any value, it can only lie in the realization of a sensible subject who stands apart from what he is observing.
> 
> Our connection to beauty, and any other value, is relational; and there you see why Reality must be divided into subjects and objects if Value is to be realized and defined.  It should be obvious that by experiencing things we define (measure) their relative values all the time.  This, in fact, is our primary role as human beings.  It makes no sense to say that the universe is "inherently valuable".  Rather, it is we ourselves who give it value and define it as objective reality, along with whatever order, beauty, truth or virtue it represents relative to our experience.
> 
> Didn't Pirsig once say that "experience is the leading edge of reality"?  I see no other way to conceptualize the Value phenomenon whereby we experience the joys and desires of life.

Yes, and why I added *conceptualized* to my definition of static patterns of value.  I agree that the individual is a participant, just not an independent, inherently existing participant.  Static patterns exist relative to consensual, conventional, general agreement.


Marsha


> You also credit me for knowing how to "light a fire".  I hope you're right, and that it sparks this community to a higher understanding of Essential Value than can be gained by the present interpretation of Qualityism.  But, as you suggest, we all live on borrowed time, and we octogenerians may not be around long enough to see the fruit of our efforts.
> 
> Your kind words are much appeciated, Joe.  I'm still waiting for our friend Mark to provide a précis of his personal philosophy.  When I've had an opportunity to review it, let's chat some more about your theory of evolution and the merits of this value concept.
> 
> Essentially yours,
> Ham
> 
> 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