[MD] aggregates of grasping

[118]

Hi Ham (now that I have regained my composure :-)).  As you know from
our off-line discussions, what I present comes from my personal
awareness.  Through discussion I am always finding a "better" way to
put it into words.   However, I believe I remain consistent
throughout, if improvement in presentation is consistency.  Therefore,
what I present may not always be fine tuned to your interpretation,
however, though your questions I try to answer in ways that are most
conducive to your understanding me.  Not that I expect to you agree,
just understand.

On Wed, Mar 7, 2012 at 1:47 PM, Ham Priday <hampday1 at verizon.net> wrote:
>
> 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.

Yes, I know.  I find nothing wrong with that.
>
>> 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.

Yes, and such falsification is based on agreed on principles that we
are taught in science.  It is, after all, a presentation of reality,
and must have its own self-consistent rules.  These rules leave much
out of course.
>
> 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.

Yes, there is the coercive side of religion.  This is simply an
apparition of dominance.  I will agree with you on the notion of
empirical knowledge.  Of course each one of us comes with a different
set.  Yes, man is a value agent, but he is not alone in that.  So, I
simply extrapolate from what you present, to make it meaningful to me
based on my experience.
>
>> 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.

I cannot speak for Dan, who knows Pirsig better than I, but that is
not what Pirsig meant.  Again it is my interpretation of his writings,
and what I believe to have been a similar experience that he went
through as described in ZAMM and is alluded to in Lila.  Mine was
around the turn of the '80s although like Pirsig, I really do not know
when it began.  Probably a decade before that.  He lives Quality, just
finds it hard to express in modern Western syntax.  So he provides
examples that may help us to understand his view.

First of all,since you capitalize "Value" I assume that you are
speaking of something which is outside our personal valuation of
things.  This would be the same reason why Pirsig capitalizes Quality.
 However, your Value is only inherent to humans (for reasons that I do
not understand, since a lion values a good meal over some scraps left
by hyenas).  As such, you are pointing to something which exists as a
proper noun, and must be considered in its entirety.  As such, Value
cannot be reduced to our simple interaction with things, since that
would simply be valuation.  In the same way, Pirsig presents Quality
as something that exists outside of our biological function.  I have
to qualify this (maybe at the dismay of some) that Quality must also
be contained by biological processes, for it is impossible to
distinguish something that lies outside of Quality.  I suppose Quality
would encompass your Essence, and all of its products.  I believe that
you also claim that Essence is comprised of everything in existence
and what has and will be.  So, let's not confuse Quality with our
interpretation of good apples, or with a good movie.  For those have
qualities.
>
> 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.

If I were to interpret this through my own filters, I would say that
we do indeed "sense" Value.  This in turn would make us humans
valuistic.  In the same way that when we sense a drop in temperature
we feel cold.  Given this, it is not a leap to state that such Value
exists outside of us, and that we are tuned to interpret it (in a
human way, of course).  Thus by conceiving of Value as something which
we can bring to light, it becomes somewhat of a subset of Quality.
For Quality (in my view) is something which initiates our
interpretation.  Therefore, it could never be "just what one likes",
it is there whether we like it or not.

There is much sensibility that is not as we like it, too.  We
certainly make our reality representative and in doing so, harness a
far Greater thing than we.  Certainly we create the dichotomy of Good
and Evil since we tend to exist between poles of our own making.  It
makes understanding easier to take two opposites to create something
in between.  However we do not need to do that, and we can start with
the "in between" which is Quality in all cases.  Just my personal
opinion, of course as I have presented to you in my more comprehensive
"treatise" on Quality (off line).

Going back to the biological function now.  The biological function
which creates everything from hunger to our expression of intelligence
is but one interpretation of Quality.  We interpret in the same way
that the surface waves interpret the ocean.  That is, they form
because of the ocean and present one aspect of it.  Another example
would be the manner in which an artist interprets the landscape.  His
painting is an interpretation of what he is presented with.  Without
the landscape, there would be no interpretation.  Indeed, different
artists could interpret the landscape in different ways, but each one
is still due to the landscape they are presented with.  To become
boring, I will give another example.  Scientist interpret physical
reality based on the instruments that they have.  Since new
instruments are being created all the time (like the Hubble
telescope), new interpretations are always coming forth.  However, the
universe does not change, only the manner in which we connect the dots
does.  We cannot create something that isn't there.  The biological
functions are only converting "what is" into "what is meaningful".  I,
of course, include the intellect in this, since the brain is an organ
just like the stomach.

However, just to finish up, we must not assume that what we can sense
is all that there is.  We cannot provide a complete valuation of all
of Value.  Nor does each person valuate in the same way.  If we make
such a qualification, we are left to find much more which we can
value.  The qualities that we can sense, are not the sum total of
Quality.


>
> [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, it is crystalizing as I interpret it with my own experience.  It
could also be said that our value-sensibility creates the self and
absolute source.  I am simply changing the point of view, and not
changing what you say in terms of the presence of these things.  Like
one of those pictures that can be seen in two ways, that is as two
goblets, or two faces.  Both are correct visions.  Subject and object
do not have to come before our valuation.  They can (by equal logic)
happen after.
>
>> 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.

Your use of the term "affinity" is close to my Quality.  I would use
"affinity" more in the sense of creation.  But the logic would be the
same.  Your explanation of free will is not different from mine,
although I take it one step further than just saying it exists.  There
are good logical reasons for its existence.  If by "Ultimate Truth"
you mean the nature of all things then I agree.  Our truths are simply
of the human variety.
>
>> 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.

I can just as easily say that Love creates the object of infatuation.
For realization means to create.  I am not sure about the instinctual
motivation for survival.  I think this is just a red herring that
comes from the theory of evolution.  We have more of an instinct to
continue a species than in individual survival.  Our fear of death is
man-made, due to projection.  It is certainly not necessary,
especially since it would make everything meaningless.  Life is far
from meaningless.
>
>> 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.

The Morality is a way of the universe.  I could ask you "where is the
love which you feel?".  If you can give me a good reason why we are
fundamentally different from the planets (I mean fundamentally), I
will show you why we are not.  Sure, we are human, but appart from
that, there is not much difference.  If one elevates all of nature to
the stature of man, one creates a very meaningful universe.  If
metaphysics is meant to bring forth meaning, then I would say MoQ is a
pretty good attempt.

I would say that man is possibly the most unbridled of all species if
we look at his behavior.  Even goats have a stronger tie to morality.
We tend to separate ourselves from the immediate nature of things,
through convoluted concepts.  Of course the brain is highly redundant
with billions of recursive feedback systems, so what do you expect.
We are very good at making the most simple the most complicated.
While this brings color to our lives.

We create by putting things together in new ways.  We cannot create
something that is impossible because the pieces are unavailable.  We
only have "what is" at our disposal.  Therefore to suddenly create
Value out of nothing makes no sense.  It must come from something
else.  But, I would love to be mistaken here.  I would like to think
of myself as some God.
>
>>> 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.

All personal value is proprietary by definition, yes.  But, I need to
get back to your book now...I find it exhilarating sometimes.
>
> (I hope you noticed that I didn't mention the dreaded 'N-------' word even
> once in this post.)

Cheers, Ham.  Me, I probably still use concepts that others find
untenable.  But I am getting better (I think).  Just keep my brain
working as you do.  Perhaps I can rival Hawkins with my own Theory of
Everything :-).  No, probably not, I do not understand Everything all
that well.

Mark
>

> 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