[MD] Value and the Anthropic Principle

[Ham Priday]

Hi Platt --


> Thanks for relaying your conversation with Witherall.
> Most of what you guys are talking about is way over
> my head. All I can say is that 0 is about something,
> so it's place in ontology always leaves me more baffled
> than usual. Our major differences continue as ever to be
> about the  nature of awareness (for me it is "proprietary"
> to quantum particles as well as humans and everything
> in between) and awareness being not of "objects"
> as you assert (creating the Subject/Object division) but
> of "values" (creating the Dynamic/static division).

I think it's the "language of nothingness" that bewilders you, as it
bewilders all philosophers.  Face it, absolute metaphysical nothingness is
not a comfortable proposition for finite humans; it's unimaginable for one
thing, and it can't create anything.  Actually, your take on proprietary
awareness is quite right; it precedes intellection ("objectivization", or
the experience of discreet objects) and consists of pure sensory value.

Setting "levels" aside, if that's possible for you, there's really no
difference between what is "proprietary" and what is "universal" at this
stage of awareness, because what we're sensing is the affinity of
nothingness (the "negate") for otherness (the value of Essence.)  This is
the equivalent of Pirsig's DQ/sq split and the attraction between the
primary contingencies.  I maintain that one of them -- what Pirsig calls
sq -- is relative nothingness with respect to the other, which is DQ or
Essence.  Thus, the value that we sense before differentiation is the
affinity of the negate for its estranged essence.

The (proprietary) intellect tries to mediate this value subjectively by
coming up with objective constructs that will appease this "longing".  These
constructs are the experienced phenomena that we call objects and events in
space/time.  They are universally recognized because they're based on
primary value -- the "value of the divide", as Bo calls it -- which we all
sense.  But it is the Value that we choose to objectify which determines our
individuality, because it's our true essence as a human being-aware.

I haven't gotten very far with Witherall, and am not enthusiastic about "0"
as a clue to metaphysical reality (Pearce's theory).  Even Arthur, who seems
fascinated by the reduction to zero ontology, refers to Pearce's analysis as
"wild speculation".  What interests me most about Arthur -- and should be
significant to you "artist" folks -- is his suggestion that emotional
responses such as "awe", "astonishment", and the feeling of "wonder" are
evidence of the valuistic nature of existence, and he subtly argues for a
self-validating cosmology.

> In any event, thanks for sharing
> and I hope there's more to come.

I'll continue to keep you posted, although I don't know how long I can
sustain Arthur's interest.  If he weren't so busy with his new IT career,
I'd invite him to join the MD.  (I'll have to ask him if he's familiar with
Pirsig.)

Thanks for the interest, Platt.

Best regards,
Ham