[MD] Intention changes physical world

[Ham Priday]

[Ham]:
> Existence is a dichotomy whose contingents are
> Awareness and Beingness.

[Case]:
> The subjective IS being. It is our attempt to assimilate
> otherness. I see no distinction between my own being
> and my own awareness.

The subjective is AWARENESS of being.  You can't reduce existence to
subjectivity, to awareness with no object.  Pure awareness is nothingness;
awareness always presupposes a referent.  We cannot escape the dichotomy.

[Case]:
> Not to keep beating a dead horse but DQ and SQ are
> aspects of Quality. They are only distinct from one another
> by degree. Just as order is a stable manifestation of disorder.
>
> I see no need to posit any uncreated much less
> undivided source.

To use your terminology, any "aspect" of Quality must be derived from
Quality itself.  Inasmuch as quality is a cognizant or subjective value it
is relative (i.e., conditional with reference to something else), hence it
cannot logically be its own source, which is why I don't equate Essence to
Quality or Value.

 [Ham]:
> Stated as a logical syllogism: Existence = Being-Aware.
> In order for Being to exist it must be made aware to a subject.
> Likewise, for Awareness to be requires an objective other.

[Case]:
> While I can see that a rock could have being without
> awareness, I do not think awareness can exist in the absence
> of being.  But in a sense a dream is awareness without
> otherness. So I am hard pressed to see the logical
> connections you are making.

Right.  Awareness does not exist in the absence of being.  Even in a dream,
we are aware of objects external to us; we're simply recollecting,
"reliving" what we've experienced in the conscious state.  I don't see this
as a valid objection; it doesn't dispel or refute the S/O dichotomy.

 [Ham]:
> Negating either Awareness or Being annihilates Existence
> by reducing it to nothingness.

 [Case]
> As I said I do not think that Being requires awareness.
> Furthermore Being can not be annihilated only transformed.
> Ice to water to steam to molecules to particles until our
> powers of resolution fail.

Conscious awareness is a psychic entity without beingness of its own.  The
body that you identify with your awareness is not self-created; it's
"borrowed" from otherness. Awareness has no existential attributes.  It
cannot be compared to states of matter.

 [Case]:
> Again the contingency is one sided. Awareness depends
> on being but not visa-versa. Awareness is a function of the
> complexity of being. As I understood the Gardner quote
> you offer against Popper, his objection what [was?] mostly
> grammatical. He did not think the distinction between proving
> a theory true and negating it opposite was one most people
> could grapple with successfully. Now you offer this up as a
> fundamental principle.

You have to distinguish negation as an arithmetical or logical "proposition"
from negation that actualizes physical reality.  It's like the distinction
between cosmogony (dialectial, theoretical) and cosmology (literal, actual).

Hegel's epistemology of actualized reality is a better model than Gardner's.
He bases his primary source on Being rather than Essence, but postulates
that it is negated -- that is, reflected in an image or "recognized" -- 
which
implies subjective cognizance of an objective "other".  He goes on to
explain that this reflection of Being is an "appearance" that "is also the
proximate truth of [Essence]" in the sense that it contains Essence in an
objective form.

According to Hegel, Appearance is the negation of the negation of Being,
whereas Actuality is the negation of the negation of Essence.  By "negation
of the negation of Being," he is alluding to a secondary negation -- one
performed by the negated self, as opposed to primary negation which is the
negation or denial of
nothingness that actualizes existence.  Objective experience is the result
of the appearance of beingness negated from undifferentiated otherness by
the negate.

[Case]:
> Still I do not see Awareness or Being as negations
> in any sense that matters.

And you won't, until you understand that awareness is not a derivative of
being.
In the philosophy of Essence, the primary source is beyond being and
awareness.
Essence creates the dichotomy that actualizes being-aware.  Cognizant
awareness, in turn, objectivizes (differentiates) all existential phenomena.

[Case]:
> What we Value is a function of our biology and our
> reinforcement history. That is, our personal Values are
> based on our personal experiences. They are embedded
> in the structure of our internal representations of the world
> around us in terms of pleasurable and painful nature of our
> experiences. This dichotomy drives the being of all living
> things from amoeba to chemistry professors. Our
> personal histories of pleasure and pain determine
> our behavior.

You've got the epistemology right.  However, Value does not evolve from
biology or physical beingness; instead it fuels the intellect to construct
them.  What has been "actualized" by Essence is negated by the subject's
becoming aware.  I see this as a reciprocal principle: the primary negation
establishes awareness-of-
otherness.  By acquiring the Value of otherness for itself, subjective
awareness incrementally annuls the effect of primary negation, gradually
restoring "actuality" to "essentiality", and in the process experiencing
otherness as "things".  In this way, Essence remains undivided,
unconditional, and (perhaps) refreshed by this independent affirmation of
its Value.

[Ham]:
> Actually, I think we may be closer on fundamentals
> than you're presently willing to admit.  But you can
> still "snap back" at me if you want to ;-).

[Case]:
> I don't know whether that counts as fundamental
> disagreement or not but I suspect my failure to see
> what the notions of uncreated Essence and
> essential source have to do with anything does.

That's because you are bound to the belief that reality is fundamentally
rooted in beingness which must therefore incorporate awareness.  (And I
thought Pirsig had "overcome" positivist objectivism!)  Again, awareness is
NOT beingness.  It's a psychic propensity that's only contingent on being.
We can't create it, localize it, measure it, universalize it, predict it, or
even prove it.  By all scientific and empirical criteria awareness doesn't
exist.  Yet it's the subjective core of all that you value.

Think upon it, Case.  Even an intractable existentialist like yourself is
capable of having second thoughts ;-).

And enjoy your weekend,
Ham