[MD] aggregates of grasping

[Ham Priday]

Hi Mark [Dan quoted] --

On Tues, March 06, 2012 at 11:45 AM, "118" <ununoctiums at gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi Ham,
> Good to hear from you.
>
> As I read (slowly) through your book, I find that much of it conforms
> with (and expands) my views,.  I do need to adjust some minor aspects
> where I extend your anthropocentric idea to the universe as a whole.
> More on that in our off-line chat.

I'm so pleased you decided to read 'Seizing the Essence', and I do hope it 
will explain my ontology in sufficent detail to understand (and critique it) 
as a worldview.  Incidentally, "the universe as a whole" IS an 
anthropocentric view, in my opinion.

> Agenda's are static if they do not allow for growth.  This is true in
> many situations including politics, science, humanism, etc.  I would
> also say, however, that scientific theories are also "opinions", they
> just have widespread agreement in many cases and are "easier" to
> convince others of because of the successes of science.  As it is
> being created, science is all about opinions.  The idea that the
> universe is expanding is an opinion, as is man-made destruction
> of the planet.  Science has reached the height of priesthood,
> where we simply accept what is told us.  As a scientist, I see the
> personal side of science, and know that scientists are no different
> than the rest.  They have a lot invested in their opinions.

As a rule, I don't criticize Science or Religion for what they purport to do 
by way of intellectual understanding or moral insight.  We all participate 
in a relational, multi-dimensional universe whose laws and dynamics must be 
understood and applied to problem-solving and the advancement of 
civilization on this planet.  This is the domain of scientific 
investigation, and its methodology affords us theories that are open to 
falsification, which ensures pragmatic efficacy as we gain more knowledge of 
our empirical environment.

Religion expresses our need for spiritual meaning and moral guidance, 
although its practice is too often based on authoritative mandates, such as 
the need to atone for the sins of Adam and placate a vengeful god, which are 
impediments to human progress.  What we need is a belief system that is 
consistent with empirical knowledge, yet which also promotes the 
authenticity of man as the value agent and choice-maker of his world.  I 
offer Essentialism as a philosophy that meets this need.

> This is not my interpretation of what [Joe] is saying.  He is drawing an
> analogy between what we term "the passions" and an indefinable place
> from which we operate.  One would have to understand MoQ, to
> comprehend this.  As you know, he does not use the term "evolution" in
> the standard biological sense.  But then again, nobody in this forum
> does.  Evolution in MoQ is a description of the nature of change,
> which is guided by the drive for improvement.  We all participate in
> that in many ways.

I touched on a statement that Dan Glover made regarding the "indefinable 
place from which we operate" which requires further elaboration, as it 
relates to the peculiar position which man occupies according to the MoQ. 
Here is what Dan said:

> Robert Pirsig was responding to the charge that the MOQ is a form
> of emotivism.  By equating morality (or within the MOQ, value) with
> sentiments and feelings, reality becomes as you like it.
>
> Emotions are a biological response to Quality. We say: I feel happy...
> I feel sad... I feel angry... I feel love. Key word: feel.  These are all
> biological responses to Quality, not Quality itself.
>
> If a person tries to rationalize love, they'll fail. That doesn't mean
> that love is undefinable, though. It means that love isn't an intellectual
> response to Quality... it is a biological response. It is like trying to
> define taste. . . .
> We cannot intellectually define taste any more than we can
> intellectually define emotion. That doesn't mean that taste is undefinable
> though.  Just bite into an apple and you've discovered the answer.
> Just fall in love and you know it.

The mistake Dan has made, and it's a trap of Pirsig's hierarchical scheme, 
is reducing Value to a "biological" function, thus denigrating its 
"intellectual" significance.

Value sensibility as I describe it is a far more profound phenomenon than a 
physiological or intellectual process.  Sensibility is the primary attribute 
of conscious awareness which, in humans, is _epistemically_ valuistic.  "By 
equating Value with sentiments and feelings, reality becomes as you like 
it," Dan says.  Yes, and in fact we all make our reality represent what we 
like, not because sentiments and feelings are mere "biological responses" 
but because "what we like" expresses our valuistic relation to the essential 
Source.  Value sensibility--the perception of goodness and evil--is the very 
essence of our Self/Other existence.

[Ham, previously]:
>> I think we've over-complicated the functional and experiential categories
>> of existence in an effort to conform to the Quality hierarchy.  The 
>> Pirsigian
>> worldview is almost incomprehensible as a consequence of such analysis.

[Mark]:
> It is indeed incomprehensible to some...  A paradigm switch is needed
> from the subject object orientation ("self-other"?), to a unifying
> principle for the creation of self and other.  This may be no
> different from your Essentialism in its creation of self and other, it
> seems to me.

In the sense that Value affirms the Oneness that existential nothingness 
differentiates, Value itself is the unifying factor, Mark.  This concept 
should begin to crystallize when you read Chpt. 5 on Value as our "Taste of 
Essence".  When you consider that conscious sensibility (proprietary 
awareness) and Value (what we desire) are the two non-objective aspects of 
our reality, it becomes clear that value-sensibility is our essential link 
with the Absolute Source.

> Yes.  However, your use of terminology of "sensibility" does not give
> free-will its due.  For free will exists outside of self and other.
> It cannot be categorized as one of the "sensibilities", for those are
> separate and are defined by our interaction with what is.  Free will
> is not part of that, but is what creates such interaction to begin
> with.  My opinion, of course, and not necessarily the position held by
> the members of this forum.

Sensibility and Free Will are are two different human attributes.  We have 
sensibility by virtue of the fact that our affinity with the Source is 
valuistic.  We are free to choose because we are autonomous creatures; that 
is, we exist as an exclusion of Essence, free of the bias that ultimate 
Truth would impose on us.

> Morality and such are born of feeling as we say in the human
> interpretation of such things.  But from where to these feelings come
> from?  Certainly we can point to biological foundations for such
> feelings, but what is it that gives them meaning to us?  It is more
> than some simple "survival" paradigm, since the need to survive can be
> said to be a "feeling" in itself.

Feelings (e.g., love, desire, aspiration) come from our valuistic 
realization of the Source.  Bio-neurological functions are only the sensory 
instruments for this realization.  The need to survive is an instinctual 
motivation innate in the genetic fabric of all creatures.

> When we "realize" these things, it means that we come into contact
> with them.  It is no different from "realizing" a solution.  This
> implies that such solution exists and that we are becoming acquainted
> with it.  We become acquainted with morality, we do not create it.
> For what power do we have to "create" such a thing?  How is it that we
> can create something from nothing?  All we can do is give it a human
> form.

Indeed, realization requires conscious confrontation with otherness, 
specifically the world of appearances.  Where is the morality "that we are 
becoming acquainted with"?  Certainly not in the insentient universe of 
celestial bodies and electromagnetic forces.  Hardly in the unbridled 
behavor of our fellow creatures.  No, the need for morality arises from our 
respect and affection for life in general and for the peaceful co-existence 
of our social equivalents in particular.  Again you ask how we can create 
something from nothing.  That's what creation is, Mark -- inventing, 
designing or composing something that wasn't here before.  Creation doesn't 
come from nothing; it comes from the genius of man who values the world and 
desires to make it a better place for himself and his loved ones.

>> Frankly, I can't conceive of Value (Quality) "bettering itself" or Free 
>> Will
>> having anything to do with the evolution of the universe.  These are
>> distinctly human precepts which arise from man's relation to his 
>> essential
>> Source.  But that's because I view the universe as a dynamic
>> anthropocentric system as opposed to static patterns created by an 
>> esthetic
>> "moral" reality.
>
> This would be no different from Essence "negating" itself.  Such
> conception requires careful construct, and cannot be understood from
> outside.  Yes, man can have a "relation" with his essential Source,
> but what is it that defines that relationship?  Why is one
> relationship different from another?  If you stick to the purely
> material side of things, one could say that everything has a "way of
> interacting" (pain, pleasure, and all that resulting stuff).  But what
> is this Way of interaction?  Why in your opinion do we have some
> values which are more important to us than others?  MoQ can answer
> this one.

I can't answer for the MoQ.  For the Essentialist, all value is proprietary. 
What brings us pleasure, achievement, and satisfaction is fulfilling our 
individual value orientation.  Because we live in a differentiated 
relational world, the goals we work for will necessarily be different for 
each individual.  If you need further clarification, we can discuss this 
off-line.

(I hope you noticed that I didn't mention the dreaded 'N-------' word even 
once in this post.)

Thanks, Mark.  Happy reading and sincere regards,
Ham