STEM, STEMG, Other

[Leela]

I liked this Leela, “James defined truth from the pragmatic prospective as that which is good by way of belief. So true is a species of good. It is what we mean by good when talking about intellectual patterns, while “moral” is a word for good that we usually only use for social patterns, and “pleasure” is one word for good when talking about biological patterns, interestingly, as is the word “immoral” since what is good on one level could be considered evil on another.”

I also find that the pragmatic understanding of intellectual truths clears a lot up for me. We can’t hope to uncover the final word on anything, and how could we know that we have done so even if we did find it? (Even if you believe in God you have to admit that he’s keeping some things a secret.)

Instead we seek “the highest quality intellectual explanation of things with the knowledge that if the past is any guide to the future this explanation must be taken provisionally; as useful until something better comes along.”

If truth is a value, truths can be examined the same way one examines paintings in an art gallery, “not with an effort to find out which one is the “real” painting, but simply to enjoy and keep those that are of value.”

You see, I believe we live in a ‘static’ manner, in material and ideal at the same moment. In moral and secular at the same time.

Can you say your thoughts are unreal as you feel the keys on the computer typing them? Can you say you are only physical as you walk in the park and contemplate the scenery? And what level is making the choice when you come to a ‘T’ in the path?

And looking at the Bible, one is suppose to be ‘moderate’ in the physical but not ‘lukewarm’ in the spiritual. So what is good in the secular is bad in the spiritual, and visa-versa. Hence your term “immoral”.

We are living on all these levels all at once. We can look at the past and present at the same time, while contemplating the future outcome. We are living many different theories to-and-fro at any given time. Like saying “I am an idealist in the morning but a realist at night.” We change as we go… one is not “strapped” to being only ONE kind of thinker/doer while living life. Any more then the wind always blows from the north. If I am into intellectual thoughts and my stomach growls, it just put me into realism and I have to turn my thoughts over to survival. I see the mind as in the ‘middle’ trying to maintain peace on both ends while not neglecting any of the other levels one has.

All this brings into existence a ‘value’ system… based on a deeper level… I call it the soul.

I was struck when listening to the campaign coverage by all the talk about “values voters” as if only some people fit in this category. What could the other people possibly be basing their decisions on if not their values? I think values run to the deepest levels (I understand the word “soul” to be used as the self at the deepest level), but I don’t think you need to go too deep to find values. I think that values run all the way down rather than being concerned with a limited collection of issues.

While sitting at the keyboard, you identified with your intellectual values until you felt hungry, then a biological value pattern took precedence. Perhaps on other occasions your identification with a social pattern of fatherhood, or a value for group cohesion, or an admiration for a celebrity or other social value pattern was front and center.

So, what do I believe? At what point of time? In what setting? And if it does sway with conditions, yes, I am a Human (while) Being.

This forest of value patterns plus the ability to create something new in response to value is what we may call “Michael David.”

Best,
Leela

 

[JDaniel]

I also find that the pragmatic understanding of intellectual truths clears a lot up for me.

Is it that you mean, everything is on a What Works scale? The better it works, the better the thing, or, exigency, is?

We can’t hope to uncover the final word on anything

You lost me.

and how could we know that we have done so even if we did find it?

I think I understand this.

(Even if you believe in God you have to admit that he’s keeping some things a secret.)

Wouldn’t you . . . I mean, considering . . .?

Instead we seek “the highest quality intellectual explanation of things with the knowledge that if the past is any guide to the future this explanation must be taken provisionally; as useful until something better comes along.”

So, I was right! It all reduces down to what “works”, doesn’t it?

If truth is a value, truths can be examined the same way one examines paintings in an art gallery, “not with an effort to find out which one is the “real” painting, but simply to enjoy and keep those that are of value.”

I think, um, no, I’m sure, that the above is, um, not cogent. Unless the paintings that exist in every house in America were purchased at one of the big discount chains, I can truly say, that in all the years of my life I’ve never seen two houses with the same pictures in them, or even a duplicate! Now, a lot of paintings and lithographs do handle similar subject matter, but, there does not seem to be any sort of general agreement whatsoever, except on the least sublime of levels.

I was struck when listening to the campaign coverage by all the talk about “values voters” as if only some people fit in this category. What could the other people possibly be basing their decisions on if not their values?

Yeah, but, they were talking about a particular set of values that have emerged over the course of the last several election cycles, because both parties have misplaced the “values” of old. So, I wouldn’t get myself wrapped around the axle over this.

I think values run to the deepest levels (I understand the word “soul” to be used as the self at the deepest level), but I don’t think you need to go too deep to find values.

Actually no, the best definition of “the deepest level” that I can think of is a mind where a super-majority of stored pictures during our lifetime can be brought into RAM for calculation (mathematical and non-mathematical) purposes. It’s not depth, it’s RAM, or the ability of the mind to remember, draw upon and make conclusions on the snapshots held in memory.

I think that values run all the way down rather than being concerned with a limited collection of issues.

Very true, as I suggested, it’s all about RAM.

While sitting at the keyboard, you identified with your intellectual values until you felt hungry

WHY did you have to bring hunger up? I’ll be right back!

then a biological value pattern took precedence

What do you mean “took”?

Perhaps on other occasions your identification with a social pattern of fatherhood, or a value for group cohesion, or an admiration for a celebrity or other social value pattern was front and center.

I’m so lost.

This forest of value patterns plus the ability to create something new in response to value is what we may call “Michael David.”

I’m sorry, I just can’t seem to get past my need for a much stronger meaning word. “Value” has a paucity (as in dearth) of meaning for me in this regard.

JD

 

[Fran65]

I didn’t realise you were still pasting in (or typing in) whole tracts. I thought it was you writing the post.

I’m glad you have found out the difference between organic and inorganic. That helps when you are talking about chemistry, biology and cosmology.

Inorganic patterns, that sounds technical…but is still Dawkin’s old concept of the meme and its evolution.

Can you relate any of what Pirsig says to God? Or did you think you’d covered that when you recounted how many of your ‘theist’ friends accept this brand of metaphysics? Or were they Pirsig’s too?

“Hey they believe it…why don’t you!” Is a very old market place/circus tent trick…Other theists believe things that Catholics don’t. It happens all the time and does not add weight to any argument for me.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Can you relate any of what Pirsig says to God? Or did you think you’d covered that when you recounted how many of your ‘theist’ friends accept this brand of metaphysics? Or were they Pirsig’s too?

frankly ‘theists’ could apply to moonies, wiccans, and volcano worshippers, and i still don’t know any who accept the metaphysics of quality as a serious philosophy. i especially know no serious members of the scientific community who accept it as even plausible in light of scientific data about the observable universe. in fact pirsigs work is probably best discussed on the ‘spirituality’ forum as i believe that it is much more closely related to that subject, despite the word ‘metaphysics’ in the title.

 

[Michael_David]

JD, are you full now?

So ‘value’ needs to be redefined for you. Shall we call it ‘worth’?

Like if you were (also) hungry (when reminded of food) it was ‘worth’ getting some food. We can look at it as a ‘directional attention’ toward the way one goes… like a rudder on a ship, it steers the whole works (you went to eat).

It will depend on what one considers ‘worthy’… at the time… that they will do. And if you go through your day you will find that you are doing many contrary things at different times throughout the day if you look at it in it’s entirety. Meaning, what is ‘worthy’ at one time, doesn’t hold the same ‘value’ at another time, as something else became more ‘worthy’ of your efforts.

If one tries to relate this to ‘truth’, and trying to follow it throughout the day, it would seem we are not. But, since we are ‘multi-faceted’ human beings, we can not operate on only one ‘facet’ for EVERYTHING we do. What if you never ate? What if you always ate? What happens to the other ‘facets’ in your being? What if you never think? What if you always think? (And never act). How can you know the present if you are not ‘fully’ in it… all your facets?

Here we come back to that soul thingy. Not the RAM. RAM does not tell me I’m hungry, only what to do when that ‘value’ becomes ‘worthy’ of attention. There is something letting you know to eat, or sleep, or think, or, or, or… that is deeper, keeping track of all your ‘facets’ needs, and ‘bubbling’ it up to your RAM for follow-up. This soul thingy also does not allow any one facet to rule to the detriment of the other facets since it’s interest is the ‘whole’ being, not simply one ‘facet’ (part).

So, what is the truth?

 

[Michael_David]

Yes Leela, it does boil down to what you said: “I also find that the pragmatic understanding of intellectual truths clears a lot up for me. We can’t hope to uncover the final word on anything, and how could we know that we have done so even if we did find it? (Even if you believe in God you have to admit that he’s keeping some things a secret.)”

But that doesn’t mean we should not try and find it. Or, have we found it already in the ‘Journey’?

Otherwise, I like your ‘spunk’… for a lack of knowing your inner ‘values’ although they do show themselves in your posts. All I’ll add is :tiphat:

Peace… even in the chaos.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

JD, are you full now?

So ‘value’ needs to be redefined for you. Shall we call it ‘worth’?

Like if you were (also) hungry (when reminded of food) it was ‘worth’ getting some food. We can look at it as a ‘directional attention’ toward the way one goes… like a rudder on a ship, it steers the whole works (you went to eat).

It will depend on what one considers ‘worthy’… at the time… that they will do. And if you go through your day you will find that you are doing many contrary things at different times throughout the day if you look at it in it’s entirety. Meaning, what is ‘worthy’ at one time, doesn’t hold the same ‘value’ at another time, as something else became more ‘worthy’ of your efforts.

If one tries to relate this to ‘truth’, and trying to follow it throughout the day, it would seem we are not. But, since we are ‘multi-faceted’ human beings, we can not operate on only one ‘facet’ for EVERYTHING we do. What if you never ate? What if you always ate? What happens to the other ‘facets’ in your being? What if you never think? What if you always think? (And never act). How can you know the present if you are not ‘fully’ in it… all your facets?

Here we come back to that soul thingy. Not the RAM. RAM does not tell me I’m hungry, only what to do when that ‘value’ becomes ‘worthy’ of attention. There is something letting you know to eat, or sleep, or think, or, or, or… that is deeper, keeping track of all your ‘facets’ needs, and ‘bubbling’ it up to your RAM for follow-up. This soul thingy also does not allow any one facet to rule to the detriment of the other facets since it’s interest is the ‘whole’ being, not simply one ‘facet’ (part).

So, what is the truth?

do you have any evidence that any of these things are real?
i may have missed something but it seems as though these concepts are simply made up out of whole cloth. what may be some objective basis on which to found these ideas?

 

[Michael_David]

Your question Petey: “do you have any evidence that any of these things are real?,” brings me to this.

Does hunger exist? Does memory exist? Does tiredness exist? Does sleep exist? Does thinking exist? Does feeling (emotions) exist? Does love exist? Does intuition exist? Heck, does this post exit?

If you are only looking for strictly ‘objective’ proof… look at yourself and tell me what you find. If you know what you are looking at, you will answer your own question(s).

What is REAL? Is a hallucination real to the one experiencing it? Reality becomes a ‘self-defined’ thing. What is real to me, through experience, may not be real to you. Objects would be objects to both of us, but the reality ‘from’ them for each of us would not. If we both look at fire, you may see it as warming; however, after having been burnt by it, I tend to shy away from it. Even though fire is fire, we look at it differently. And both our views are ‘real’… but not the same.

So what does ‘exist’… and for who?

 

[JDaniel]

JD, are you full now?

Why, yes I am. Thank you!

So ‘value’ needs to be redefined for you. Shall we call it ‘worth’?

No. I would not use either of those two words. Both of them are “passive” descriptors. I prefer an “active” descriptor, and, as I previously indicated, “compel” is good. I asked several people during the last two days and each one agreed with me. “Cause” connotes an act of “compelling”.

Like if you were (also) hungry (when reminded of food) it was ‘worth’ getting some food. We can look at it as a ‘directional attention’ toward the way one goes… like a rudder on a ship, it steers the whole works (you went to eat).

Maybe, but I compelled my self to go to the kitchen. The kitchen didn’t “drag” my atoms to it, which is what “passive” case words implicitly imply.

It will depend on what one considers ‘worthy’… at the time… that they will do.

That’s just wrong. I when I have to go to the bathroom, I don’t waste time “considering” the “worth” of doing so. I go as if “nature” is compelling me to go. The ONLY consideration I give to it, is whether or not I go in my chair, or, go to a room the purpose of which is to handle bodily refuse.

And if you go through your day you will find that you are doing many contrary things at different times throughout the day if you look at it in it’s entirety.

I looked at yesterday, in its entirity. I didn’t recall a single “contrary” thing. Seriously.

Meaning, what is ‘worthy’ at one time, doesn’t hold the same ‘value’ at another time, as something else became more ‘worthy’ of your efforts.

To some extent, I will agree, but, that only applies to a few day-parts. Most of the day was a splendid participation in the “effects of compulsion”.

If one tries to relate this to ‘truth’, and trying to follow it throughout the day, it would seem we are not.

You assert a thing to be the “truth”, but, you and I have very different definitions of that word.

But, since we are ‘multi-faceted’ human beings, we can not operate on only one ‘facet’ for EVERYTHING we do. What if you never ate? What if you always ate? What happens to the other ‘facets’ in your being? What if you never think? What if you always think? (And never act). How can you know the present if you are not ‘fully’ in it… all your facets?

Sorry. I would have thought that all of the answers to these questions to be prima facia per se.

Here we come back to that soul thingy. Not the RAM. RAM does not tell me I’m hungry, only what to do when that ‘value’ becomes ‘worthy’ of attention. There is something letting you know to eat, or sleep, or think, or, or, or… that is deeper, keeping track of all your ‘facets’ needs, and ‘bubbling’ it up to your RAM for follow-up. This soul thingy also does not allow any one facet to rule to the detriment of the other facets since it’s interest is the ‘whole’ being, not simply one ‘facet’ (part).

I disagree. MY soul is not concerned with the mundane modus operandi of my creaturely life. It is, instead, concerned with my relationship with God. What you’re talking about is purely emanating from either the reactive or the analytical parts of one’s mind. Knowledge of this helps me immensely when contemplating the sublimities of life.

So, what is the truth?

That sophistry is fun? So, we have several sophists herein! Except that I’m right! Cause implies compel, value and worth do not, unless one just asserts that they do. But then, that assertion has as its “value meme” a pre-condtion or purpose of confusing and not of arriving at Truth.

JD

 

[JDaniel]

Your question Petey: “do you have any evidence that any of these things are real?,” brings me to this.

Does hunger exist? Does memory exist? Does tiredness exist? Does sleep exist? Does thinking exist? Does feeling (emotions) exist? Does love exist? Does intuition exist? Heck, does this post exit?

If you are only looking for strictly ‘objective’ proof… look at yourself and tell me what you find. If you know what you are looking at, you will answer your own question(s).

What is REAL? Is a hallucination real to the one experiencing it? Reality becomes a ‘self-defined’ thing. What is real to me, through experience, may not be real to you. Objects would be objects to both of us, but the reality ‘from’ them for each of us would not. If we both look at fire, you may see it as warming; however, after having been burnt by it, I tend to shy away from it. Even though fire is fire, we look at it differently. And both our views are ‘real’… but not the same.

So what does ‘exist’… and for who?

Nothing, I guess. All of this (life) is just an illusion anyway. Or, in your word, a “hallucination”.

See, I learned something new today: Life can be an hallucination EVEN IF one does not take drugs! Why spend the money on them? Why stick a needle in your arm? (Painful) Why take something up one’s nostrils? (Burning out one’s nasal linings - painful.) Why sniff glue? Why squirt stuff into the corner of your eye?

Oh well, all these questions are meaningless - just a pile of hay, on the value scale. They have nothing to do with “reality”. So, don’t fret. Don’t even think about answering them. Seriously.

Well, I think I’ll get myself a glass of water.

JD

 

[Leela]

One could assert exactly the same thing about the concept and word, “cause”.

The point is not to get rid of all references to the word “cause” but rather to provide a emprical metaphysical basis for causality which can be understood as an exteremely stable value pattern.

This smacks of crude sophistry. Remember, the Sophists of ancient Greece were so good at “spinning” that it resulted in them earning lots of money. Soon, the citizenry came to hate them, and, later, they all turned into lawyers! :yup:

I think this is a case of history being written by the victors. For the sophists, true was a subset of good, which for Aristotle, the good was subordinated to the truth. Truth won, the Good lost,. The victory was so complete that now you even question whether values are real.

Best,
Leela

 

[Michael_David]

JD, so for you it’s ‘cause- >compel’.

I will go along with this on the physical level, but not on the mental level, nor the moral level. On these levels those words do not fit the resulting attention or movement without consideration of the value or worth. On these levels one can ‘desire’ as a cause… like reading a good book. I can or do not have to read the book, the ‘compel’ is not there. What is considered when ‘wanting to’ read a book?

If you did not do anything contrary yesterday, like being ‘awake’ and going to ‘sleep’, and if you do not consider these as contrary, then you are speaking from a deeper level which considers them as merely different states of the same being. To put ‘compel’ here, how long can you stay awake before being ‘compelled’ to sleep? Or, is there a ‘value’ or ‘worth’ to sleeping that you do it before ‘compelled’ to?

And, if the soul is only interested in one’s relationship with God, and all our bodily activities are resulting from physical/mental ‘causes’, why are we told to love God with our heart-mind-soul? If the soul loves God, while the heart-mind is busy with all the ‘causes’ to deal with in the world, we would seem to be divided in purpose. What is the ‘value’ or ‘worth’ of that?

 

[JDaniel]

The point is not to get rid of all references to the word “cause” but rather to provide a emprical metaphysical basis for causality which can be understood as an exteremely stable value pattern.

“empirical metaphysical”: why would you relate these two words as you have done above? Undoubtedly, this juxtaposition has “meaning” (value) to you. Could you describe the value for me?

I think this is a case of history being written by the victors. For the sophists, true was a subset of good, which for Aristotle, the good was subordinated to the truth. Truth won, the Good lost,.

I suppose, if you saw this as a war, of some sort, between two values of equal stature. As I told you, “Value” is not as powerful to me as “compel”. And, if we use “compel”, we eliminate the problems with needing to “see”, “touch”, “taste”, “smell”, or “feel” cause which, I think, “value” still leaves us with.

If one were to hold a gun to my head in order to extract some information from me, that would not be the proximate value of me telling him what he wants to know. My vocal chords producing “thoughts in the air” are the proximate value. The “gun held to my head” would be the remote value. It’s just not compelling enough.

The victory was so complete that now you even question whether values are real.

Absolutely, I do not. I value value. And, I know they’re real. It’s just not the word I would prefer to use, that’s all. I would replace “cause” thusly: billiard ball A strikes billiard ball B compelling billiard ball B to move off in a direction specific to the angle from whence the two balls met.

This provides much more accuracy of thought, does not preclude the science involved, and, still leaves the door open to randomnicity and potential. The more I contemplate the word “compel” the more I really like it.

Value is a personal qualitification statement. “I like that picture.” “I love fast cars.” “I’d rather not walk on egg shells.” You see what I mean? Does this make any sense?

JD

 

[Leela]

A huge part of our problem with the set of concepts you are presenting is that your philosophy requires the creation and re-creation, as well as the re-defining, of words. (Should you require examples, please request them and I will produce some.)

Hi JD,

I think a strong argument could be made that philosophy is all about defining and redefining words. It is a problem, but one that we can’t get completely around. The trick is to express a new idea with theold words by encouraging a different sense of their use without going so far as to completely confuse things. I have to keep trying to make my self clear.

However, for our immediate purposes, your definition of “intellect” “states” that it is independent of matter. Here is one problem I have with this: if that is True, why does a particular physical trauma to the brain often produce the effect of loss of intellect (albeit in varying degrees), while in some, there appears that no loss has occured?

I have defined intellect as the manipulation of symbols that stand for patterns of experience. A particular pattern of thought can be contained in a variety of material containers like a brain and is not so independent as to continue to exist without a container. But an idea is independent of inorganic and biological patterns in the sense that it does not follow the laws of gravity or get hungry. It is governed by a completely different set of rules.

Can you describe this “value”?

Value is the leading edge of experience. What is not valued is not experienced.

This seems completely wrong to me, as a one time biologist, so, perhaps you can help. I know of no “demonstrations” from biological evolution where it creates complex order, etc. Biologists have only “seen” the results of some evolution, as we have never witnessed evolution. We infer that evolution took place, over millions of years, from fossil “records”. Some biologists believe this is enough, while many others believe that the total system is too complex for it to have simply evolved.

It would help me to answer if I knew whether or not you believe in biological evolution.

This opinion creates, at least for me, another problem: an atom is an aggregate of parts. These parts consist of protons, neutrons and electrons, plus, virtual particles that prevent un-caused electron loss. And, these may not be limited to just this task. The positing of virtual particles, if in fact such forces do exist, is much more complex than a larger aggregate of atoms, such as a dog or cat. Now, I’m not saying that dogs and cats are not complex, but, I am saying that, in the scheme of things, atoms and virtual particles appear to be much more complex.

Since cats and dogs contain atoms, they contain all the complexity of atoms (inorganic paterns) plus more (biological patterns).

Since there are two studies of chemistry, organic and inorganic, how can an organic life form evolve from inorganic chemicals?

Pirsig uses organic in the usual sense of not living or being derived from a living being rather than te specialized use in science as containing carbon.

Here, I think, we have hit another obstruction. The philosophy you are describing postulates that Quality is in the realm of the metaphysical. It is itself an intellectual pattern – a postulate.

Quality is directly experienced. It is empirical reality. It is not some mystical realm. Metaphysics is used by Pirsig in the philosophical sense of being concerned with the fundamental questions of being.

I think that the majority of mankind find that the “recognition of quality” is rather something that we “learn” primarily from human beings older than us, and that one person’s Quality may not be another person’s Quality.

This is true to a greater or lesser extent on all four levels. Though inorganic patterns are more universal, we all have slightly different biology. We are likely to all have the same reaction to the low quality of sitting on a hot stove, so in that sense we see that value is empirically verifiable, but there are differences in how our bodies respond to medication. One medicine could be good for me and bad for you. Consider this forum for an example of how we can differ with our views on what has social quality which is likely to depend in large part on our upbringing as well as how we have different ideas about what is true (good to believe). So, yes, we do have different views of what has quality.

We already knew that, but what Pirsig demonstrates is what is universal, which is the evolutionary hierarchy of value systems itself and the ground of being that drives evolution of these patterns toward greater freedom. It gives us a metaphysical foundation for talking about values that materialism lacks.

Best,
Leela

 

[Leela]

Aristotle also points this out. But, I’ll go you one better: why use a word grouping that employes, as its predicate, the word “value”? Value, to me, is too soft. When I “see” a cue ball strike and numbered ball, I “see” that the numbered ball is “compelled” to fly off on a precise course, baring any unforseen obstacles. Why not replace the word “value” with the word “compel”? (I might be tempted to change my mind about the use of the word “cause”, although Cause appears to me to have a bit more compulsion attached to it than does Value.)
…
What does one look like?

It don’t think you can actually see “cause” or “compulsion” in the billiard example. You are making an inference from repeated conjunction. If you saw me go to a Chinese restaurant, if you didn’t believe that people have free will, by repeated conjunction you may conclude that I am “compelled” to order General Tso’s Chicken.

You ask what a value looks like to demonstrate that values are not empirical (meaning directly experienced or derived from experience). Values are not outside of experience. They are the essence of experience. Values are more empirical than subjects or objects. Any person of any philosophical position who sits on a hot stove will verify without any intellectual argument whatsoever that he is in an undeniably low-quality situation: that the value of his predicament is negative. This low quality is not just a vague metaphysical abstraction. It is an experience. It is not a judgment about an experience. It is not a description of experience. The value itself is an experience. As such it is completely predictable. It is verifiable by anyone who cares to do so. It is reproducible.

Later the person may generate some oaths to describe this low value, but the value will always come first, the oaths second. Without the primary low valuation, the secondary oaths will not follow.

Our materialistic culture teaches us to think it is the hot stove that directly causes the oaths. It teaches that the low values are a subjective property of the person uttering the oaths. Not so. The value is between the stove and the oaths. Between the subject and the object lies the value. This value is more immediate, more directly sensed than any “self” or any “object” to which it might be later assigned. It is more real than the stove. Whether the stove is the cause of the low quality or whether possibly something else is the cause is not yet absolutely certain. But that the quality is low is absolutely certain. It is the primary empirical reality from which such things as stoves and heat and oaths and self are later intellectually constructed.

The reason values seem to be non-empirical to materialists is that
empiricists keep trying to assign them to subjects or objects. You can’t do it because they don’t belong to either group. They are a separate category all their own. It is the direct experience, the value, from which subjects and objects are later derived.

Best,
Leela

 

[CatsAndDogs]

…You ask what a value looks like to demonstrate that values are not empirical (meaning directly experienced or derived from experience). Values are not outside of experience. They are the essence of experience. Values are more empirical than subjects or objects. Any person of any philosophical position who sits on a hot stove blah blah blah…

[Edited]

What do “oaths” mean in the above?

WHERE is this “philosophy” actually anywhere NEAR useful?

Is there some “empirical-valuific metaphysicists” club that meets to hash out why they aren’t simply gnostic neo-platonic spiritualists on a semi-regular basis so as to have something “arcane” to do to justify their dues?

[Edited]

Please help me out here. Why should I “value” this (Leela’s) thinking in the least?

:shamrock2:

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Your question Petey: “do you have any evidence that any of these things are real?,” brings me to this.

Does hunger exist? Does memory exist? Does tiredness exist? Does sleep exist? Does thinking exist? Does feeling (emotions) exist? Does love exist? Does intuition exist? Heck, does this post exit?

 

[JDaniel]

It don’t think you can actually see “cause” or “compulsion” in the billiard example.

Maybe, but, you alluded to all five senses and I can “feel” compulsion. In fact, we often hear, or read, the following statement, “I felt compelled to do it.”

And “taste”, as in, “One taste and I wanted more.” And, olfactory, as in, “One sniff and I couldn’t get enough.” And, finally, “sight”, as in, “I was blown away (compelled to disintegrate) at the sight of her.”

You are making an inference from repeated conjunction. If you saw me go to a Chinese restaurant, if you didn’t believe that people have free will, by repeated conjunction you may conclude that I am “compelled” to order General Tso’s Chicken.

“Repeated conjunction” would tell me that the “taste” of Chinese food (no matter what dish it was, which I wouldn’t know, unless you repeatedly showed it to me when you leaving), “compelled” you to repeat your patronage of the restaurant.

You ask what a value looks like to demonstrate that values are not empirical (meaning directly experienced or derived from experience).

But, this was your expressed problem with the use of the word, cause - that it could not be seen, felt, heard, tasted, or smelled - just a few posts back.

Values are not outside of experience.

Neither are “compel” and “cause”.

They are the essence of experience.

So are “cause” and, even more so, “compel”.

Values are more empirical than subjects or objects.

Like, “my sight ‘valued’ seeing that little stone”?

Any person of any philosophical position who sits on a hot stove will verify without any intellectual argument whatsoever that he is in an undeniably low-quality situation: that the value of his predicament is negative.

I guess, if someone wanted to sit on that hot stove and contemplate his situation. Me, I’d be “compelled” to jump off instantly. You see, we do have a “reactive mind”. That part of the mind that is below the “analytical” part. It compels us to do things instantly, without resorting to calculating through a value proposition…

This low quality is not just a vague metaphysical abstraction. It is an experience. It is not a judgment about an experience. It is not a description of experience. The value itself is an experience. As such it is completely predictable. It is verifiable by anyone who cares to do so. It is reproducible.

And, so is my reactive mind’s instructions to the muscles of my legs to get up. In fact, as proof that I do believe in “value”, I submit that I prefer (value) my reactive mind’s “compulsion” OVER the contemplative “evaluation” of my situation.

Later the person may generate some oaths to describe this low value, but the value will always come first, the oaths second. Without the primary low valuation, the secondary oaths will not follow.

So, now that i am on fire, and my back end is in excruciating pain, I’m going to do more contemplating. Really, this all sounds like too much ado about nothing.

Our materialistic culture teaches us to think it is the hot stove that directly causes the oaths. It teaches that the low values are a subjective property of the person uttering the oaths. Not so. The value is between the stove and the oaths. Between the subject and the object lies the value. This value is more immediate, more directly sensed than any “self” or any “object” to which it might be later assigned. It is more real than the stove. Whether the stove is the cause of the low quality or whether possibly something else is the cause is not yet absolutely certain. But that the quality is low is absolutely certain. It is the primary empirical reality from which such things as stoves and heat and oaths and self are later intellectually constructed.

I repeat, it’s still much ado about nothing. I do not even need to analyze the situation. Even way down deep in my reactive mind, where no calculations at all are made, that part of my mind will instantly tell (compel) me not to do that again.

The reason values seem to be non-empirical to materialists is that empiricists keep trying to assign them to subjects or objects.

Does accepting the reality of objects then make me a mateialist now? And, if I discover that I love a certain painting have I not “clothed” it in my personal value?

You can’t do it because they don’t belong to either group.

Oh yes I can.

They are a separate category all their own. It is the direct experience, the value, from which subjects and objects are later derived.

So?

Look, all of this rhetoric sounds really like a reductio ad absurdum. When I touch the fire of a hot stove, I am compelled to take action. Later on, I might preceive some value in having a reactive mind.

JD

 

[Michael_David]

Hi Petey, I’ll start here: "there is a large difference between objective reality vs. subjective experience. "

Dividing this up, there is a difference between objective and subjective; as well as reality and experience. Although we do have relationships here since one cannot be without the other.

Looking at ‘objective’ or objects first, which causes/creates the ‘subjective’ means it is we who ‘interact’ to form the results. Again, looking at ‘reality’ or what is real first, which causes/creates the ‘experience’ means it is we who ‘interact’ to form the results. Both of these are part of ‘our’ reality in our interaction with the rest of the web of our existence. And one not only interacts with ‘objects’ but also with other people (I do not consider a person an object, although they are real).

In this, where interaction with other people is concerned, we have to reverse the direction to go with ‘subjective’ which creates the ‘objective’ and ‘experience’ which creates the ‘reality’. What I am saying here, is it’s all in the application or interaction with this ‘real’ world, of which we people are a ‘reality’ of this real world.

Objects are objects… perhaps? The river water is water… perhaps? The river water was drinkable when I was young, now it is not… the make-up of that water has changed by many peoples ‘interaction’ with it. Is it still the same (identical) water as when I was younger? No! In analyzing it, it’s identity has changed, it has a different composition now. Likewise, is an ‘object’ an object always and forever?

I find all things are “fluid”… even solid objects. And in living life, outlooks change too, or the ‘subjective’ and the ‘experience’ parts of your statement. So, if all parts of the there is a large difference between objective reality vs. subjective experience are fluid (by our very presents) there are no solids to be had even with objects and reality, as they are like the subjective and experience. The only thing we can say is that in this point of time, with this condition, in this situation, under these conditions… it was such. But, like the river water, try and do that again to come to the same end and the experiment flops.

And yes, most everything I look at, study, or do has to be applied in my living life. I do like philosophy and theology for trying to understand all this. And even these are ‘fluid’ fields of study, as understanding develops and grows.

The only ‘constant’ I find in all this is ‘change’… it becomes slippery.
Spiritually, we have a whole different set of realities.

 

[Leela]

Can you relate any of what Pirsig says to God? Or did you think you’d covered that when you recounted how many of your ‘theist’ friends accept this brand of metaphysics? Or were they Pirsig’s too?

“Hey they believe it…why don’t you!” Is a very old market place/circus tent trick…Other theists believe things that Catholics don’t. It happens all the time and does not add weight to any argument for me.

Hi Fran,

Personally, I don’t feel that belief in God is well-jsutified. What I have been talking about is at heart a shift from thinking of reality as based in substance to thinking of reality as based in value. Is there something about making that shift that you feel is inconsistent with belief in God?

Best,
Leela