Ham Priday stated June 8th:

I just returned from a short vacation on Chincoteague Island, VA… 

Ant McWatt comments:

From one isle of horses to another one in the virtual world!  Anyway, Ham, I hope you made good use of Chincoteague’s
picturesque beaches.

 
Ham continued:

…to find a lively discussion of my ontology going on here with Mark as moderator. 

Ant McWatt comments:

Yes, an interesting observation.  There’s a character in the “Magical Mystery Tour” film called “Buster Bloodvessel” who dresses as a courier, talks like a courier and even thinks he IS THE courier (for the Magical Mystery coach).  He’s not though (it’s Jolly Jimmy Horse-son, of course).  To a certain limit (but only to the limits of British decency?!) it can be quite a lot of fun to let the “Mr Bloodvessels” of this world have their moment in the spotlight but I wouldn’t take what they say very seriously.  

 
Ham continued:

It would appear that the best way to get attention on the MD is to be absent for a few days!  Now that I'm back, I'd like to respond to some of Ant's comments (which will relieve Mark of having to act as my surrogate).

Ant McWatt comments:

Ham, I wish you well in that expectation.

 
Ant McWatt <antmcwatt@hotm...> wrote June 6th:

> I think it would be better to say that value isn't a emotional response
> but is primarily experienced emotionally - at least for human beings.
> For a quantum particle, this "value response" will entail something
> different.


----cut-----

 
Ham continued:

I don't consider the movements of astral bodies or quantum particles to be "value responses". Physical objects behave according to the laws of physics.  

Ant McWatt comments:

Don’t forget that these laws of physics - in the context of fundamental particles - is based on probability which is one end of an MOQ “probability-preference continuum” (as illustrated in Pirsig’s 995  SODV paper – found at moq.org and referenced in your paper about Essentialism at: www.essentialism.net/mechanic.htm).  Moreover, since the 920ss, remember that we’re no longer living in a Clockwork universe as illustrated by Karl Popper in his text “A World of Propensities” (published in 1990): 

“The world of physics is, we have known for some time, indeterministic.  It was long regarded as deterministic.  And then, after quantum indeterminism was accepted, indeterminism was usually regarded as affecting only the tiniest bodies, such as radioactive atoms and only very little.  But this, it turned out, was a mistake.  We now know that not only tiny particles are affected but also the probability of chemical reactions, and thus, of classical mass effects.” (Popper, 1990, p.19)

“I have stressed that propensities should not be regarded as properties inherent in an object, such as a die or penny, but should be regarded as in a situation (of which, of course, the object is a part). I asserted that the situational aspect of the propensity theory was important, and decisively important for a realist interpretation of quantum theory.” (Popper, 1990, p.14)
 

Ham continued:

Although such laws may have teleological value for humans, objects lack the sensory capacity to respond to value, so to call their behavior"value-driven" or a "response to value" corrupts the meaning of value and demeans the term in my opinion.

Ant McWatt comments:

This comment indicates you’re still stuck in an SOM prison.  In other words, Ham, you’re trapped with your old fashioned notions of what values should be; just like that poor old monkey in chapter 6  of ZMM:

“The most striking example of value rigidity I can think of
is the old South Indian Monkey Trap, which depends on value rigidity for its
effectiveness. The trap consists of a hollowed-out coconut chained to a stake.
The coconut has some rice inside which can be grabbed through a small hole. The
hole is big enough so that the monkey's hand can go in, but too small for his
fist with rice in it to come out. The monkey reaches in and is suddenly
trapped... by nothing more than his own value rigidity. He can't revalue the
rice. He cannot see that freedom without rice is more valuable than capture
with it.  The villagers are coming to get him and take him away. They're coming
closer -- closer! -- now! What general advice...not specific advice...but what
general advice would you give the poor monkey in circumstances like this?”

Ham, if you ever get past your own value rigidity about how the term value can be used and examine the relevant literature (as detailed in the bibliography of my Ph.D. – which you have), you will realize that the choice is basically between having an “expanded” understanding of the term “value” (as we have in the MOQ) or living with a number of intractable philosophical
platypli (as illustrated in chapter   of LILA). Though it appears you haven’t taken on board that these metaphysical problems
can’t be resolved within SOM itself (remember all those great philosophers who tried - and failed - over the centuries to do so!), at least, you realize their long-term nature.  To quote from your own paper on Essentialism:

“Mind vs. matter is, nonetheless, an ontological schism that cuts across every observation of physical phenomena, every set of moral principles, every assessment of man's place in the universe.  Trying to understand reality by searching only for objective information is the equivalent of one hand clapping.  The philosopher strives to get beyond empirical ‘otherness’ for an understanding of reality itself.   For Western philosophers prior to the twentieth century, this was seen as a goal that could
only be achieved by reducing reality to a monism; that is, by rejecting either the subjective idealism of Plato or the objective materialism of Science.”

In addition, remember an expanded use of value terminology that includes physics fits in with an indeterministic universe but also does not affect what is observed in the science lab:

“The difference is linguistic.  It doesn't make a whit of difference in the
laboratory which term is used.  No dials
change their readings. The observed laboratory data are exactly the same. The
greatest benefit of this substitution of ‘value’ for ‘causation’ and ‘substance’
is that it allows an integration of physical science with other areas of
experience that have been traditionally considered outside the scope of
scientific thought.  Phædrus saw that the
‘value’ which directed subatomic particles is not identical with the ‘value’ a
human being gives to a painting.  But he
saw that the two are cousins, and that the exact relationship between them can
be defined with great precision.  Once
this definition is complete a huge integration of the humanities and sciences appears
in which platypi fall by the hundreds. 
Thousands.”  (Pirsig, LILA, end of chapter 8)

 
> Ham Priday continued May 30th:

> Value-sensibility is identified with a particular human being in the

> same way that consciousness is the locus of one's awareness.

> Since sensibility is an 'essent', not an 'existent' like the physical

> body, it has no empirical location.

>

> Ant McWatt commented:

> That sounds like a important difference with the MOQ.

> In the MOQ, I would suggest that this value sensibility of yours

> doesn't exist as biological patterns have a space-time location.

>

>> Ant McWatt, earlier:

>> Yet Ham, you asserted above that "value-sensibility... is an

>> 'essent', not an 'existent' like the physical body, it has no empirical

>> location."  We seem to have a move here from no empirical

>> location to an empirical location. That doesn't seem to be

>> ontologically consistent to me and is at least confusing!



Ham commented:

This hang-up on space/time location is an unnecessary obstacle to reaching some consensus here.  Does consciousness or
value have spacial coordinates in your view? 

Ant McWatt comments:

Ham, possibly you should be more careful in how you are using your terminology (for instance, it looks like you’re conflating consciousness with value here) or we will always be talking at cross purposes.  Anyway, in the MOQ, space-time is a high
quality idea that is presumed to correlate to an independent physical reality.  (Again, as we see in the SODV paper, the MOQ
has no fundamental argument with physical realism though, critically, it adds this “high quality idea” qualification to it).


Ham continued:

Beauty and magnificence have value to us, are identified with us, yet are not limited to the objects that represent them in
experience.  I don't understand why your epistemology depends on physical or biological location.

Ant McWatt comments:

I don't have an epistemology.  Anyway, to make things simple here, when you’re talking about biological patterns in the MOQ, it is considered a high quality idea that these are located in space-time i.e. being part of this “objective world” that you enjoy
reminiscing about.
 

----cut----

 
Ham continued:

Incidentally, the notion of "levels" itself suggests relational difference or contrariety which is not intrinsic to Essence, nor would I expect it to apply to DQ.  This is why I find the idea of DQ moving to betterness problematic, for it suggests that the
source of existence is a variable rather than absolute.

Ant McWatt comments:

As far as I understand it, Pirsig is careful to assert that it is only static patterns of quality “moving to [an undefined] betterness”.  Dynamic Quality doesn’t move anywhere.
 

>> Ham Priday continued May 30th:

>> ...Value is relative to the observer, to the space/time

>> perspective of the individual subject.

>> That means what is valued -- whether it is morality, aesthetics,

>> or truth -- will differ from one culture or society to another.

>>

>> Ant McWatt commented:

>> I think this statement confirms my charge of cultural relativism

>> which makes Essentialism redundant in this modern world.



Ham continued June 8th:

The modern world, like the ancient world which preceded it, is a relational system, and human beings relate to each other in the same fashion.  That the source of this system - whether you call it God, Quality, or Essence - is posited as unconditional or non-relative does not make it a redundant or invalid concept.  On the contrary, the ontology of a pluralistic, relational universe is strengthened by an absolute source as its fundamental principle.

Ant McWatt comments:

You’re missing the point here Ham. Cultural relativism is worse than useless in this modern world of ours.  You seem (again quoting from your on-line paper) concerned that the United States is being “terrorized by a horde of suicidal fanatics bent on destroying Western Civilization in the name of a deity that shows no regard for the value of human life.”  That’s rather sensationalist.  For instance, did you see any of these nuts on your recent visit to Chincoteague Island?  I dare say you didn't and that a rather more detached, impartial examination of other world cultures would strengthen the credibility of Essentialist metaphysics. 

As I pointed out to Mark Smith recently, Pirsig's philosophy was a development of the ideas espoused by F.S.C. Northrop in his seminal text "The Meeting of East and West". This was the book read by Pirsig on his return home from Korea in the late 940ss and is largely concerned in how the major world cultures can be reconciled with each other through a detailed examination of their cultural norms and history.  Remember, much of Northrop's book had been written during the Second World War and, as he states in its introduction, the newly invented Atomic bomb made it possible for the first time, for human beings to completely destroy themselves. This being the case, it was then imperative for world governments to catch-up with this new reality hence the need for better inter-cultural understanding through new organizations such as the United Nations. 

In fact, I believe Northrop helped established the latter.
 

Ham concluded June 8th:

I appreciate your thoughtful comments, gentlemen, as well as the opportunity to put the philosophy of Essence into proper perspective as it relates to Value.  I also hope these comments will help to resolve some of our differences.

Ant McWatt comments:

My pleasure, Ham.  I will finally add here that your metaphysical system would be much improved if you finally dropped these redundant notions of subjects and objects and replaced them with the MOQ’s four static levels of value patterns.  As you have been an occasional poster here for nearly ten years, I’m sure you will now have some idea of how such a modification could work despite your value rigidity.  Now such a project might be of interest to fans of Pirsig's work and, as such, sell a few books!
 

Best wishes,


Ant


Dr Anthony McWatt
site administrator

www.robertpirsig.org



.



     
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