[MD] The hard question.

[Ham Priday]

Greetings Joe and Mark --


Mark said:
> Value in evolution could be depicted in the paradigm of survival.
> In my opinion, Evolution is not the levels, but what creates the
> levels.  We do not consider the modern version of the horse to BE
> evolution, because it is static.

Joe had said:
> I am trying to understand a value in evolution.

So am I, Joe.  What evidence do we have that value evolves?  Has the value 
of the universe, or man, increased in quality over the generations?  Is 
there more value in the world today than existed in the neolithic period?  I 
think not.

Value is man's sense of virtue, worth or excellence.  It is derived from the 
uncreated Source from which man is separated as a newborn individual, and it 
is objectified in his experience of a relational universe.  Thus, the amount 
of value realized by mankind at any time in history is limited to the 
space/time perception of the human organism.  Unless the value-sensibility 
of that organism is somehow enhanced in the process of evolution, the value 
perceived remains unchanged.

Joe goes on to say:
> The value between defineable and indefinable is negation.
> Evolution is not negation.  Existence is logically perceived in
> different formats, DQ/SQ.  I do not want to view DQ as
> individuality, but rather as common to sentient individuals.

I agree in principle with this analysis, although the details are somewhat 
murky.

Perceived difference of any kind is a result of negation.  The fact that 
Joe's awareness differs from Mark's is a consequence of the individuation 
that makes Joe a different person (i.e., sensible agent) than Mark. 
Individuation is an attribute of all beings in existence, since Beingness 
itself is negated from Sensibility to create being-aware.  It is this 
primary difference that distinguishes being from nothingness, subjects from 
objects, self from other, static from dynamic, space from time, and the 
definable from the indefinable.  The process of evolution is not negation 
until it is broken down (intellectually) into changed segments or 
differentiated  levels.

Also, inasmuch as DQ is for all intents and purposes Pirsig's Primary 
Source, Joe does not view it as "individualized" but as a common "property" 
of sentient individuals.

Mark says:
> I believe that Value between what one can define and what one
> cannot (definable/indefinable) is the same as the value between
> boundaries and "no boundaries".  The definable is confined and
> the indefinable is not.  Personal valuation of these two states,
> depends on how one uses them.
>
> As I see it, DQ is not individuality but that from which individuality
> comes.  Take for example the experience of a roller coaster.  Each
> ride is an individual experience, but Experience cannot be confined.
> We can say that Experience is common to us individuals, but
> individual experiences are not.  One is foundational, the other is
> ornamental.

If DQ is taken to be the Absolute Source (Essence, in my ontology), then it 
is that from which everything comes.  However, differentiation is not an 
attribute of the Source per se, but is actuated by a negation of the Source. 
Again, existence is a contingency of being and nothing.  So a thing does not 
exist until it is differentiated from nothingness.  Where does this 
nothingness come from?  Since Essence is absolute 'IS-ness', nothingness 
logically must be negated by Essence.

Thank you, gentlemen, for providing an opportunity to demonstrate negation 
as a fundamental principle.

Essentially speaking,
Ham