[MD] BeTteR-neSs (undefined or otherwise)

[Ham Priday]

Hi again, Mark --

> You do present a good description of the difference between the
> absolute, and our interpretation of it.  Negation is the process for
> such differentiation.  As I see it, while such differentiation arises
> from the absolute, the process for doing so must exist separately
> and draw something out.  This kind of spark cannot arise on its own,
> but must be set, to provide the fire.  This form of a negational node
> implies a window (or release valve) which exists, not one that is created.
>
> I appreciate the distinction between your ontology and Quality in that the
> latter suggests direction.  This is also one of my stumbling blocks with
> Quality, which comes from an appreciation of Taoism.  However, the ever
> changing appearance of things does suggest some kind of direction.  I
> suppose this is why religion is so powerful.  There seems to be intent of
> some kind.  If we delve into the nature of that intent we break it up
> statically and look backwards for beginning.  If we accept intent without
> initiation then a creator is not necessary.  I believe you would subscribe
> to this latter statement.  However, the act of negation does imply a
> beginning which does subscribe to creation, so I am left hanging. ...
>
> In the beginning, of our selves, is what I am questioning.  If we couple
> that with the subjective notion of self, it is difficult to imagine that 
> such a
> a thing came from nowhere.  It is not intuitively obvious no matter how
> many words are used.  There is something not right and forced in that
> interpretation.  Perhaps something nihilistic, I don't know.

What I presented in the previous post was an ontogeny for the emergence of 
differentiated otherness from a negational Absolute.  It was only a 
blueprint for the "mechanics" of creation, not its value.  You are "left 
hanging" because you haven't related the created "self" to its essential 
nature, Sensibility, which is the "active" contingent of the existential 
dichotomy.  Now that we're in the differentiated mode, we can describe 
"patterns" (negated entities, if you will) in terms of their functions and 
relations in the finite world.  Keep in mind, as we do so, that Difference = 
Negation, and anything that is differentiated is a negated "other" (essent).

Sensibility, as I define it, is the valuistic attribute of Essence that (as 
a "negate") accounts for awareness, including self-consciousness and the 
cognitive perception of otherness.  The biological organism supports this 
"individuated sensibility" as being-aware, and every essent that is 
perceived represents a denial (negation) of its otherness by the negate.  In 
other words, the creation of a finite entity (being or thing) is a 
"secondary negation" by which the negate incrementally reclaims the value of 
otherness for itself.  It is my hypothesis that negation/affirmation is a 
reciprocal function, and Value is the common denominator.  By virtue of the 
existential dichotomy, that which divides us FROM the Source as a negate 
also draws us TO the Source as value-sensibility.

> I appreciate the distinction between your ontology and Quality in that the
> latter suggests direction.  This is also one of my stumbling blocks with
> Quality, which comes from an appreciation of Taoism.  However, the ever
> changing appearance of things does suggest some kind of direction.  I
> suppose this is why religion is so powerful.  There seems to be intent of
> some kind.  If we delve into the nature of that intent we break it up
> statically and look backwards for beginning.  If we accept intent without
> initiation then a creator is not necessary.  I believe you would subscribe
> to this latter statement.

Without getting into Vedantic analyses, I reduce the "intent", "direction", 
and teleology of existence to the free will that is innate to the sensible 
self.  Quantitatively, the universe is a self-subsistent system whose order 
and symmetry represent the "intelligent design" of a transcendent Source. 
Qualitatively (i.e., valuistically), our being-in-the-world is the reality 
created by our value-sensibility.  The values we sense may be classified as 
aesthetic, emotional, intellectual, and moral; and what we make of this 
reality will depend on the particular configuration of our "value 
complement" which is unique for each individual.

The physical universe needs no "direction" because its appearance is our 
finite (objectivized) experience of essential value.  As its subjects (value 
agents), however, we do.  And the direction we follow is the personal 
"intent" afforded by rational, self-directed value.  We respond to value 
desideristically.  It is what we inherently desire or seek as an existent --  
joy, contentment, beauty, magnificence, knowledge, peace, freedom, 
confidence, and spiritual fulfillment.  (You fill in the desiderata, for 
they will conform to your unique sensibilities.)  The individual is the 
autonomous choice-maker of his universe, and what he chooses ultimately 
determines the quality of his life-experience.

As an incremental negate of its estranged source, value-sensibility cannot 
exist beyond the conditions of finitude.  Having rounded the negate cycle, 
the individuated self surrenders its conditional being and existential 
awareness to otherness, thereby revoking its negated status and reclaiming 
its essent-value.  The final negation is neither amnesia nor the impairment 
of a lingering organism.  I envision it as the "redemption of desire" in the 
sense that the "lover" and its "love object" are reunited in what is 
essentially a "divine consummation."

Cheers, and have a great week,
Ham