[MD] SOM Problem #6523213: Relativity and ...

[Ham Priday]

Ahoy, Mark -- 

I don't know what you've been drinking, but it sure perks up your 
creativity!
Maybe you should consider writing a sequel to Lila's Child -- you might call 
it 'Lucy and Her Co-dependent Relatives'' or, maybe, 'Honey, I Think We've 
Snagged a Reef'.  (Either way, it would certainly sell better than a droll 
book about Essence.)

Seriously, I wanted to comment on your previous post re: Relative.

> OK, by your criteria"objects" is the wrong word to use.
> What I was trying to say is that multiple concepts can give
> birth to new concepts.  This is a form of manipulation.
> I agree that we currently [discussing to?] come to some
> agreement on some terms, but that we have come to
> agreement on others.
[skip]
> As you say, it is the subject that interprets the input and
> creates the object from its qualities.  It is this Valuation
> which separates us from the object.  I think I am addressing
> the process of negation, not the result.  I am not arguing
> against an experiential reality in favor of a trancending reality,
> in this case.  In fact, I believe both exist.
>
> In terms of the SO paradigm, let me use an example:  What [is]
> the Subject or Object in the experience of pain?  Pain is an
> experience, no different to other experiences.  Once the pain is
> felt, we can then objectivize it to see what is causing the pain,
> or study it to see how the pain manifests internally.  But the
> pain itself is the experience.  When we see something, we
> experience it first in the same way.  Then we divide it into
> relational pictures within a subject-object paradigm.

Okay, you're now talking epistemologically, which is the dynamics of value 
sensibility or "how we know what we know".  I concur with most of what 
you've outlined above.  However, some guidelines must be laid down for this 
study if we are to come to any agreement at all.  First, I would say that, 
while knowledge is universal, all experience is proprietary to the 
subjective self.  Some experience (like pain, taste, sight, sound, and 
touch) is generated by internal receptors within the body itself, and is 
called proprioceptive sensation.

What we are usually discussing, however, is the experience of "reality" 
which involves our engagement with external phenomena.  The nature of these 
images or appearances is important because it holds the answer as to whether 
we actually "create" physical objects or passively receive sensory data from 
them.  My best guess is that the parameters of existence -- what we call the 
physical laws of energy, force, and mass -- are "pre-coded" (as it were) in 
Essential Value but  become relationally operative in space/time experience, 
the only reality we know.  Discrete objects, their differentiated forms and 
properties, arise in conscious awareness from proprietary sensibility whose 
primary essence is always Value.  Inasmuch as all value is derived from one 
Essence, existential reality conforms to universal (i.e., empirical) 
experience.

I could extend this theory in greater detail, but it would be largely 
speculative and probably not worth pursuing at this juncture.

This is a good start, Mark.  It does touch on negation, as you've noted, 
chiefly because nothingness accounts for the "difference" in differentiated 
existence.  I'd like to explore that concept further with you at a more 
appropriate time, say when you've provided sufficient information for me to 
see where it's heading in a metaphysical context.  (This will have to be 
your personal philosophy, since RMP's MoQ stops short of an ultimate 
reality.)

I printed out your reflections on Marsha (below) for my wife to enjoy.  As 
they say in our pop culture, it was a fun read.  Keep 'em coming!

Kudoos to a fledgling novelist,
Ham
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

> Dear Mr. Ham,
>
> Now that you know that Marsha is our main interpreter and spokesperson
> in MoQ, I guess the cat is out of the bag.  Pirsig himself stated that
> Marsha has the final word.  I just got this from Wiki-youboattube
> recorded during a Skope teleconference with RMP, while he was on a
> recent cruise:
>
> "In my opinion, Marsha is the true spokesperson for the metaphysics
> which I presented as MoQ.  She has pointed out my many mistakes in
> both Lela and Zen and the Start of Motorcycle Maintenance [3].  I have
> made the appropriate corrections as she suggested [4].  This will all
> be released in my upcomming Wikileak called "Marsha, As It Maybe, For
> Certain, Will Be: An Inquiry into Relativity" [5].
>
> [3] Robert M. Pirsig "Reflections on Marsha" (2011) Academicaly
> Pressed.  pp 666-666.
> [4] Unpublished observations while sailing on "de Nile"
> [5] Patent pending, USP4Me4Me4Me4Me
>
> [Loud shreak and splash...]
> Pirsig: [unintelligable]... stear the boat skipper!  This cruise ship
> is heading straight for the rocks!  Skipper?  Skipper?  Has he jumped
> ship again? (Music from the movie Titanic is heard in the background):
>
> "...Near, far, wherever you are
> I believe that the heart does go on
> Once more you open the door
> And you're here in my heart
> And my heart will go on and on"
>
> Jack: "Go on, I'll get the next one".
>
> Rose: "No, not without you".
>
> Jack: "I'll be allright. Listen, I'll be fine. I'm a survivor,
> allright. Don't worry about me. Now go on, get on..."
>
> "You're here, there's nothing I fear,
> And I know that my heart will go on
> We'll stay forever this way
> You are safe in my heart
> And my heart will go on and on."
>
> Jack: "You must promise me...that...you won't give up. No matter what
> happens. Promise me now Rose".
>
> Rose: "I promise".
>
> Jack: "And never let go that promise".
>
> Rose: "I'd never let go, Jack. I'll never let go..."
>
> [Lound noise sounding like a giant Pizza being tossed]  SSSWOOOSH!!
>
> Interviewer:  "Mr, Pirsig.  Are you still there Mr. Pirsig?  Mr.
> Assange, we seem to have lost connection..."
>
> J.A. (interrupting):  "It doesn't matter we got what we needed, we
> need to show the World!  Now publish it!!"
>
> The above taken from Wiki-Wiki, Leaky-Leaky, smelly-smelly, ono-ono
>
>
> Mr. Ham, thank you for your interest in MoQ, but obviously your
> inadequate learning has led you astray.  I suggest 3 hail Marsha's and
> a large donation to the MoQ fund as repentance.  People need to eat,
> you rich old man!
>
> Sincerely yours,
> Marky-Marky-Mark (repeated 118 times)