From: hampday@earthlink.net
Date: Sun Aug 15 2004 - 18:48:11 BST
From Ham in response to Platt, Sunday, August 15
Subject: MD Metaphysics of Value
Hi Platt (and all others "listening in"):
In reply to your last message I said ...
> Value may be "felt" like an itch; but it is typically "desideristic",
> that is, sensed as an affirmative response to something wanted.
to which you replied ...
> This is too complex for me to grasp, Ham. Is there a way to express the
> idea in simpler terms? Maybe an analogy would help.
Platt, I'll put it as simply as I can, although sensation of Value is an
intensely personal experience that is probably best understood by the person
sensing it. From what little I know of psychology, I would explain it as a
state of awareness in which sensibility takes control of awareness away from
the intellect and libido, allowing us to absorb some aspect of the perceived
world and identify totally with its essence [or "nature", if you must]. As
Pirsig suggests, most of us know what Quality "feels like" -- the problem
remains how to properly explain it as a metaphysical phenomenon. (Pirsig
has as much as said that he can't.)
You can arrive at an understanding of Value by asking yourself: What in the
world do you want or "love" most? That brings your pyscho-emotive functions
into play. I tend toward epicureanism, for example, so I seek out music by
Tchaikovsky and Strauss, illustrative art, pleasant companionship and fine
food. These are "conditional" values for me. [Note that I'd have a problem
calling these deseridata -- or even my affinity for them -- "Qualities"]
While, in a general sense, I agree with Pirsig that everything we experience
has Quality [Value], this does not logically lead to the conclusion that
Quality [Value] must be Reality itself. Those of a theistic persuasion, for
example, would have trouble with the notion that God is "literally" Love --
although most of them see the connection, and some have tried to "deify"
Love. However, I do believe the concept that "Value is the essence of man's
reality" has much potential for society at large.
Since I believe in an a priori Source, and view all experience as a duality,
I may have a slight advantage over the professor in that I can posit a
dualistic Value, whereas his all-encompassing Quality must be non-dual.
Both of us, however, are equally convinced that "QV" [if I may use this
abbreviation in the spirit of cooperation] is the key to reality.
> Whatever the answer, I think aesthetic non-dual experience may be
> the Rosetta Stone to understanding Pirsig's Quality=Experience
> =Reality. I don't know of anyone who hasn't at one time or another
> experienced something so good it "stops you in your tracks" and "all your
> static patterns (dualities) are shattered." (You'll find Pirsig's
> description of such and experience in Chapter 9 of Lila) Whether your
> "Value" points to the same sort of experience I'm not sure.
You've nailed it perfectly, Platt.
Essentially yours,
Ham
>
>
>
> MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
> Mail Archives:
> Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
> Nov '02 Onward -
http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
> MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
>
> To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
> http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
>
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sun Aug 15 2004 - 19:43:04 BST