[MD] Betterness - 4 levels of!

[118]

>
> Hi Ham,
>
As usual, I will rely on Socratic questioning and my opinions to further
this conversation.

[Ham]

> 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 agree that what we interact with is what impinges on our body/brain.  The
laws of physics are creations of the mind, in the same way as a flower is.
 This does not mean the flower does not exist as a coalescence of matter (my
descriptive term), but perhaps not as we see it.  So, when we say that there
are no laws of physics, this is simply a projection of a concept, which
doesn't actually mean that there are no laws of physic.  By the same analogy
we can say that there are NO no laws of physics (double negative intended to
coincide with your ontology).

My point is that the observer can never be separated, so randomness cannot
exist.  I think this is what you are saying.  If we are intelligent then
intelligent design must exist.

>
>
>> [Ham]
>
> 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.
>
>
[Mark]
I believe I understand your use of Absolutely in terms of value.  I would
agree with this now, even though I may have disagreed before (I can't
remember).  I believe we could also call this Quality.  The separation of
realities is not necessary, both can exist as a continuum, or actually be
the same thing.  We can certainly conceive that there is such a thing as an
ultimate reality, but why go there if we do not need to.  Such a thing
represents something we cannot conceive.  I know for a fact, that I cannot
see infrared rays, but they do exist since we can create them with certain
sensors.  Such things are not ultimate, just out of range, but I know this
is not what you meant.  I take what you say to mean is that which we existed
in before we were born.

So, here is my analogy, which I have presented before.  Imagine a fish tank
with water.  There is a pump which delivers air into it to form bubbles.
 The bubbles rise to the top and disappear.  They come from air and return
directionally to air (aka Quality).  Now, each bubble has its own
realization due to its boundaries, that is their presence in the reality of
water.  However, the air within the bubbles is no different from the air
which was originally outside.  The air in the tanks has a chance to view the
reality provided once it is pumped in.  By your ontology, such air inside
the bubble would not exist.  Now I have opened myself to the creation of a
pump and leave myself in the same position I put you in when I ask how does
this separation occur.  I would like to think that we control the pump.

>
> [Ham previously]:
>
>> 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 previously]:
>
>> 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)?
>>
>
> [Ham]

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]
As I see your description here, we have Nothingness or the Absolute, we have
our negation, and we have our negation of that negation.  Am I close?  As a
double negation, we extract from Nothingness as we visualize objects.  In
this way, Value is an operator which negates, and we have to step out to use
it.

>
> [Mark previously]:
>
>> 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.
>>
>
> [Ham]

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.
>
> [Mark]
>
Yes, I understand the epistemology is wrong but I could see it in my head.
 If I understand you, the cake exists in Nothingness.  The value which we
create uncovers it.  If I am getting close, I will try to harmonize with my
current structure.  Add a wing to it as it were, give it some nice stucco, a
little garden and such.  No offense intended, I see all this as a creative
process, nothing to uncover as it were.  I am not trying to build a tower to
the heavens, such things do not exist in my opinion.

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
>