[MD] Betterness - 4 levels of!

[Ham Priday]

Hi Mark -- 


> Back to our conversation which is my attempt to provide myself an
> understanding of your ontology, and perhaps further my own within
> my brain.  Some interactive comments below.

[Ham, previously]:
> Since natural phenomena are programmed by genetics and the forces
> of nature, it seems reasonable for the Darwinists to dismiss Intelligent
> Design as just an argument from ignorance, i.e., plugging a Creator
> into the gaps of scientific understanding.

[Mark]
> Yes, I see the Darwinist view as yet another view.  It certainly has 
> strong
> support which would indicate that we are designed to think along those
> lines.  Birth, growth, and death obviously help and can be extrapolated 
> the
> world as a whole.  Being at the top of evolution is also a strong 
> enforcer.
> Darwinists would claim that Nature is the creator, I am fine with that.
> The impersonal sense of such Nature does not ring true since I interact
> personally and it is difficult to separate myself from all else.  In a 
> way,
> your personal negation does that kind of separation, in my interpretation,
> and therefore requires some rethinking on my part to bring it in.
>
> I agree with the flyer by what you have presented.  Of course my
> interpretation of ID is as convoluted as anyones.  The Darwinist notion
> of evolution requires a separation of species from the selection process.
> In this way, intelligence can be somehow isolated to the human race
> and not be part of the whole.  If one uses simple definitions of
> intelligence, it is hard to isolate it to the way we, simply as humans, 
> are.
> ID implies a plan, at least at the beginning.  It is quite possible that
> such a plan took a life of its own (yes, pun), but even this kind of 
> reasoning
> is not necessary to melt ID and Darwinism together.  This whole notion of
> randomness does not hold together as a statistical model because of our
> interaction with it.  The observer must be separated from that measured
> for randomness to be brought in.

That "the observer must be separated" in order to validate randomness is in 
itself a clue to ID.
What cognitive experience imparts to otherness is multi-level objectivity, 
causality, symmetry, inter-relationality, and holistic 
self-sustainability -- in short, all the ingredients needed for an 
intelligently designed universe.  Indeed, it is why I maintain that these 
design attributes are imbedded in the Value by which the observer's 
sensibility creates existential reality.  It's also why you say (above) "I 
interact personally and it is difficult to separate myself from all else." 
And it supports astrophysicist John Wheeler's assertion: "Laws of physics 
relate to man, the observer, more closely than anyone has thought before. 
The universe is not 'out there', somewhere, independent of us.  Simply put: 
without an observer, there are no laws of physics."

[Ham]:
> I conceptualize existence as that phase or mode of Essence whereby
> its Value is incrementally realized by a free agent.  My paradigm here is
> that of the individual self looking at its Absolute Source from the
> "outside", as it were, and creating an objective reality to represent the
> value realized.

 [Mark]:
> OK, I kind of get that.  It is the break in continuity that I have trouble
> with.  I would then qualify Being as that which witnesses through this
> particular window, but is no different from such ultimate reality.  Of
> course we do not remember anything before birth (at least I don't) so
> such a break is intuitive, but may be more a function of memory.
> I would agree, that in this incarnation we can say that it appears that
> we are differentiating whereas before we were not.  Your notion of
> value realized is similar to mine, except perhaps in a critical point
> where I state that such value already exists and we are experiencing it.
> But this can be reified with yours perhaps through some logical link.

VALUE IS ABSOLUTELY because it's an attribute of Essence.  Therefore, value 
is primary to its realization as experiential existence.  (This may be what 
you're missing, Mark.)  Remember, there are two "realities": ultimate and 
existential.  When I say "unrealized value doesn't exist", I don't mean 
there is no value without an observing subject, only that a sensible subject 
is required to realize it relationally.

[Ham]:
> Value-sensibility is as close to physical non-existence (nothingness) as
> any known entity can be; yet the Self is the cognitive locus of all that
> exists. That's why I put so much emphasis on "nothingness" as the 
> antithesis
> of Essence, and why I attribute its actualization to a "negational" 
> Source.
> Lastly, inasmuch as Sensibility and Value are both derived from Essence, 
> it
> logically follows that their experiential counterparts are the 
> individual's
> link to the Absolute.

[Mark]:
> What you say about the link makes sense to me in an objective way.
> The trick for me is to create the subjective sense.  The difference could 
> be
> indeed subtle but quite remarkable at the same time. Could you explain
> what you mean by the experiential counterparts (again)?

The objects of experience: namely, rocks, trees, animals, planets, galaxies. 
Perhaps I should have said "components" or "constituents".  I was trying to 
distinguish the subjective sense from the objective image.

[Mark]:
> How about this analogy?  There is a cake and an eater.  When the cake
> enters the mouth, the sense of taste is realized through the negation of 
> the
> absence of taste.  The taste existed all along, but required its 
> realization.

Great analogy, Mark!  Except the epistemology is wrong.  The cake 
objectively represents the eater's gustatorial or hunger values (i.e., 
desire) which he satisfies by consuming the cake.  It is the object (not its 
taste) that is negated so that its value may be claimed.  But I like your 
cake analogy because the object is literally negated, rather than simply 
left as the objectivized value, as is more typical of experiential reality.

Which reminds me ...I'm making dinner tonight.  Better get to it!

Nice to hear from you again, Mark.
Ham