[MD] Essence: Reciprocal View

[Ham Priday]

SA --

> I don't know if you caught what I meant or not.
> What I'm saying is this negation/affirmation held
> together by Value called reciprocal view or in other
> words a principle of Essence, this is how we've had
> difficulty before.  You and I had difficulty due to
> the emphasis you held on negation and finite beingness
> conceptional view.  I was, I believe from what your
> trying to say here with this principle of reciprocal
> view, I was coming from the affirmation view (you the
> negation view).  Thus, within these reciprocal views,
> without having a strong footing on a view outside
> these reciprocal views, you and I had difficulty in
> discussing.  The negation view and the affirmation
> view, though of one principle called reciprocal
> principle, are views with such different perspectives
> that if we stick with only one of these views and we
> meet somebody with the opposing view in this
> principle, then it may appear that we are arguing over
> a metaphysical view of reality, in other words, one of
> these views would appear to be better than the other.

Existence is a dichotomy, but its absolute source is not.  Philosophy must
encompass both modes of reality.  The idea that some human beings can live
out their lives real lives practicing the "view" that existence is Oneness
is preposterous.  It's simply not our experience as finite creatures.  All
we can do is understand that differentiated existence is not the ultimate
reality.  That's why we have Philosophy to speculate and hypothesize on such
asbstract matters.

Likewise, a "reciprocal" principle is by definition a two-way proposition.
If
you think only one way, it's not reciprocal.  Boyle's law  (pV = C) is an
example of reciprocation.  It says "for a given mass at constant
temperature, the pressure times the volume is a constant."  That means
volume is inversely related to the pressure applied: as you increase the
pressure, the volume decreases, and vice-versa.   So, the argument is really
whether Negation and Value are repicrocal functions or not; if they're not,
then the principle doesn't hold.

You seem to be contesting "value realization" as a valid premise in itself,
therefore are not (yet) ready to accept the principle.  I've written much on
value perception and how it leads the intellect to objectivize being.  If
you're willing to consider this concept, I'll attempt to explain it to you.
Or you can read my article "Why Value is the Esence of Experience" at
www.essentialism.net/ValueEssence.htm .

> As of now, it seems, this experience I've been trying
> to describe to you, is an experience that falls under the
> affirmation aspect of the reciprocal principle you mention.
> This affirmation would rid S and O divide, right?

Ultimately it does.  But subject/object is the mode of experience that can't
be eliminated while we are conscious beings.  Since beingness is borrowed
from our objective nature, our true "essentiality" is Value.  Therefore, the
value we affirm in our life-experience is what we ultimately are, and the
individual's value profile ultimately determines his "place" in Essence.
(Place is of course a metaphor in this context.)

> And you know that's where I've always been coming from
> in my perspective, and with this larger bridge/principle in
> which your trying to show how affirmation and negation
> 'come together' is helpful in 'bridging' your view and
> my view so we may communicate more effectively, I
> believe.

Good.  I hope it's helpful.  At least I figured it made sense to tie the
bipolar dynamics of value together as a working principle.

When you've read the current Values column and the above referenced article,
I'd appreciate your letting me know if I haven't articulated this concept
well enough to be understood.

Thanks, SA.
-- Ham