[MD] The hard question.

[Ant McWatt]

Ham Priday stated May 25th:

For your benefit, let me repeat here what I said about value.  (Are you 
listening, Mark?)
 
[Ham]:
> 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.

Ant McWatt comments:

Ham,

This is a lovely summary of one particular SOM position about Value.  I nearly feel nostalgic.  

Anyway, where is this "sense of virtue" actually located?

If you're saying the mind (as it appears you are), how does your system deal with the charge of relativism 
(between different societies) or, for that matter, the various metaphysical problems that Pirsig takes us 
through in Chapter 8 of LILA that such a position entails?

God knows why you haven't yet found a more suitable philosophical discussion group to introduce your 
Essentialist ideas to but you're undoubtedly sincere in your beliefs and you at least deserve credit for that.  

 
[Mark]:
> DQ is not an absolute source in the Essence-like way.  It is not a
> sum total of all being.  It is more like a pallet of colors that are
> mixing in combinations to create colors.  It is like the sum total of
> all your knowledge and experience mixing to form coherent thoughts;
> it is what thoughts are made of.

Ant McWatt comments:

I'm glad someone cleared all that up then...  DQ isn't like a pallet of anything.
It isn't helpful to conflate it with intellectual static patterns either!


[Ham to Mark]:
 
I'm disappointed that you would revert to MoQ terminology in order to refute Essence.  

Ant McWatt comments:

Ham, I found this a rather strange comment.  I'm disappointed that you are disappointed about the use 
of MOQ terminology on MOQ Discuss!

Isn't such a use at least helpful in bridging what Essentialism is all about and what the MOQ is about?!

Best wishes,

Ant




.