[MD] Fw: Objectivism and the MOQ

[David M]

 DM: Try this: to be aware is to experience the value (good or bad) of 
either
 change (DQ) or the return of the same (SQ/patterns)


> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Ham Priday" <hampday1 at verizon.net>
> To: <moq_discuss at moqtalk.org>
> Sent: Sunday, November 12, 2006 6:54 AM
> Subject: Re: [MD] Objectivism and the MOQ
>
>
>>
>> [Ham]:
>>> But is Absolute Beingness even conceivable?   If so,
>>> how do we divide it up into the finite pieces that constitute
>>> existence?  Perhaps that would mean Nothing is the Creator.
>>> Or, perhaps we divide it by our own nothingness?
>>
>> [Laramie]:
>>> Interesting.  What is the difference you have in mind between
>>> "Nothing" and "nothingness", used in the last two sentences?
>>
>> Empirically there is no difference; nothingness = nothing, and the negate 
>> or
>> Self is nothing.  Epistemologically, however, the nothing-self (negate)
>> becomes something to itself as soon as the organism senses value: it 
>> becomes
>> the "identity" of that value.  At that moment -- probably a late stage in
>> fetal development -- the Self/Other dichotomy is transformed into the
>> proprietary awareness of an otherness.  Thereafter, the negate is a
>> metaphysical entity known only to itself.  (It has no empirical 
>> equivalent.)
>> So, in that sense, PA is a "different nothingness" -- the conscious locus 
>> of
>> a being-aware.  And the object of PA is the appearance of Value as
>> beingness.
>>
>> [L]:
>>> Self-awareness, intellection, value sensibility,
>>> moral judgment, and creativity are the faculties
>>> the MoQ requires us to exercise in order to
>>> understand it, and which were used by its author
>>> in order to write it.
>>
>> In order to understand the MoQ?  I submit that we use these faculties to
>> construct existential reality.  And the exercise of these faculties is 
>> not a
>> "requirement" of any philosophy, but the inherent response of the 
>> embodied
>> negate (individual identity) to the Value perceived.
>>
>> [L]:
>>> IMNSHO, the role of the individual is to enable the
>>> universe to become aware of itself, and to become
>>> an expression of it.
>>
>> Let's see -- IMNSHO -- could that be "In-My-Not-So-Humble-Opinion"?
>> Is that my clue that you're not about to modify this assertion?
>>
>> Actually, the concept gets you to third base in the ballpark of
>> Essentialism.  To score a home run, you'll have to accept a slight
>> modification.  The universe is not significant.  The role of the 
>> individual
>> is to enable Being to become aware of Value.  Human individuals are the
>> autonomous "beings" by which Value is realized.
>>
>> Someone here recently quoted an anonymous source that stated: "My mind is
>> not in my body; my body is in my mind."  This is very true.  Not only my
>> body but the entire universe is in my mind; it is the being of my 
>> existence,
>> my identity.  The universe is no more than mental images constructed by 
>> the
>> intellects of "beings-aware" like you and me to represent the values we
>> perceive.  Metaphysically, the objects of existence are what is left over
>> when their values have been selectively acquired by the subject.
>>
>> Allah willing, I'll be running additional Value Page essays in the future 
>> to
>> explain the dynamics of value sensibility in more detail.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Ham
>>
>>
>> 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.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
>>
>