[MD] BeTteR-neSs (undefined or otherwise)

[118]

>
> Hi Ham,
>
That is intense and beckoning prose indeed.  Thanks!

The hanging is obviously in my inability for apprehension as you have found.
 But, I am patient if not obsessive.  If we spoke in Sanskrit it might have
been easier since they had so many more words for these things.

[Ham]

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).
>

[Mark]
I do understand the result, but not the emergence itself. The relationship
of self to essential self, as you say, I do think I understand.  I also
appreciate that relating to the undifferentiated mode is difficult to do
with differentiated concepts.  Again, negation seems to imply a mirror image
of some part of other.  If I substitute Difference for Negation, I still am
treading water.

>
> 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.
>

Yes, sensibility is expressed through valuation or the other way around, I
think I understand.  Self consciousness is an important clue.  However, such
a thing is only described objectively.  What I would state, is that
consciousness is a window presenting through an Avatar (to use the Hindu).
 The consciousness of self is looking back at what is looking through the
window.  "The brain meets the soul and they shake hands" is one of my
sayings for enlightenment.  Probably got if from somewhere, but I like to
think it is original.  The mind has to know where to look, however.  I will
have to put some thought into your existential dichotomy.

>
> [Ham]

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.
>

[Mark]
Free will and intent support each other and cannot exist alone. I have no
problem with entering the universe from somewhere else, but the spark of
creation involved in that entering is again a problem from a subjective
sense.

>
> [Ham

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.
>

[Mark]
Here I would say that intent comes before rational justification of such
self-directed value.  A seemingly minor but important difference, which
perhaps brings Quality in.

>
> [Ham]

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."
>

[Mark]
Once the window is closed, the value-istic, portion of it closes.  I do not
see any loss of union during this experience.

>
> Cheers, and have a great week,
> Ham
>
> Cheers,
Mark

>
> 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/md/archives.html
>