[MD] Betterness - 4 levels of!

[Ham Priday]

Hi Mark --


> 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.

Exactly.  But the reverse of that axiom is more significant for our 
purposes: Order exists because the observer is inseparable from the reality 
he observes.

> 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.

Not if Essence is the primary source.  Essence is not a "continuum" any more 
than "absoluteness" is a continuum.

> 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.

Infrared rays are not created by sensors.  They are a form of energy 
inferred by the cognizant subject from the cosmic order of valuistic 
existence.

> 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.

You may like that idea.  But, inasmuch as we are not gods, we do not control 
the source of our existence.

[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 [constituents] are the 
> individual's
> link to the Absolute.

[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.

Nothingness is a "contaminant" of existence in that it sets up the voids 
that separate things and events from each other in space and time.  There 
are no voids in Essence other than those that appear to the individuated 
observer (negate).  In double-negation, the observing subject negates 
otherness (essent) by acquiring its finite value, leaving the objectified 
being in its place.  (This is an incremental, one-at-a-time process whereby 
the observer "reclaims" its value-complement experientially over a 
lifetime.)   Value is the vital link between the created Self and its 
uncreated Source.  The "operator" or agent of Value is the sensible self.

[Ham]:
> 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.

You're almost there, Mark!  As value-sensible beings, we constantly confront 
a negated form of Essence that we recognize as otherness.  (I call it the 
"essent" to distinguish it from the negated self.)  In simple terms, we make 
objects exist by negating all otherness, less that which represents our 
particular value orientation of the moment  -- in this case, a cake.

I arrived at this epistemology as a result of re-reading Sartre's 'Being and 
Nothingness'.  Sartre asserted: "We want the being of the other for 
ourselves."  But in my ontology "the other" is not yet "being".  Instead, it 
is the ground of our desiring, the essential value that we can only 
experience finitely as things and events.  To acquire that value for 
ourselves we must negate its "otherness"; hence the double-negation.  Things 
"become" when we impose our nothingness on the essent to the extent of our 
value sensibility.  We do this with each and every experience, constantly 
"recreating our existential reality" in the process.

This is still a bit fuzzy, I know.  But I hope it is comprehensible.  If so, 
possibly you can come up with a formula or equation of some kind to make it 
clearer for others --Tim, for one, who appears to be stymied.  I would be 
extremely grateful for any suggestions you can provide toward this 
objective.  Who knows? --it might even help the Pirsigians in explaining 
(comprehending) the "patterning" of Quality.

Many thanks, Mark,
Ham