[MD] Conduits of Value

[118]

Hi Ham,
No new insights from this side, just some doodling with words below.
Mark

On Mon, Nov 29, 2010 at 10:45 PM, Ham Priday <hampday1 at verizon.net> wrote:

> [Ham]
> For a "beginning" this is an excellent interpretation.  I especially like
> the "negation presents as differentiation" postulate as you've worded it.
> One minor correction: Although differentiation makes possible the
> realization of value, it is not the source of value, nor is an object
> "outside of awareness."
> Realization of essential value is primary to experience, and the object is
> a finite representation of that value.  What we (as the agents of value)
> negate is the "otherness" of our space/time experience, which actualizes the
> finite being whose particular value we appropriate to satisfy our desire. (I
> don't know if it's possible to analogize the dynamics of value, but feel
> free to try!)
>

[Mark]
As  I imagine it at this point, Absolute essence is the source of value.
 The personal presence of value is its traverse through us.  Let's not take
the wire analogy too literally.  I am seeking to provide a metaphor for the
connection which we feel as we reverse negation (doubly negate).  I suppose
a short circuit is death.  The flow of value fits in with another metaphor
that I derive from the field of Bioenergetics.  This involves the flow of
energy through the body.  Bioelectrochemistry is a subset of this.  Energy
flows as electromotive force from reduced substances to oxygen.  We harness
that flow like a waterwheel harnesses the flow of water.  This waterwheel
can the be used to do other things, like walk around, using that energy.
 Thus the essential energy is put through a meandering path down to its
lowest potential.  Sorry for the scientific terminology, but a waterfall is
a good description.  In the same way, essence flowing through us is
harnessed as differentiation (again, an incomplete analogy).  The dynamics
of value is like a stream in this sense.

>
> [Ham]
>
> I like the concept of Essence "connecting with itself", although the
> electric circuit analogy may be a bit obtuse for the average reader.  What
> if there's a short circuit, and you blow the fuse?  (Just kidding.)
>

 [Mark]
It is just a description of a flow.  I think we would all agree that there
is something moving, despite what Zeno states.  Moving from somewhere to
elsewhere where both of these are the same thing.  Kind of like a bubble
moving through a fish tank.  From absolute air back to absolute air.

>
>
>> It makes a lot of sense to me.  The question is: Will it make sense to the
> average Pirsigian?  For "differentiating" purposes, I've borrowed some
> special terms from Sartre and the existentialists which, I think, avoids
> some of the redundancy you've run into, vis-a-vis Essence and Existence. For
> example, I call the "finite essence" that we experience valuistically as
> beingness (otherness) "essent".  I refer to the 'I' or "self", which is not
> essence, as the "negate".  I also distinguish "experience" from the
> "sensibility" which is primary to it.  These terms may help you formulate
> equations or syllogisms should you intend to pursue this strategy on my
> behalf.
>

[Mark]
I have not returned to Satre after reaching a dead end through him.  I found
it depressing for whatever reason.  I still like Camus' description of
value.   The "I" comes from essence, but also experiences it as a negate.  I
would infer that sensibility is required for experience.  However, in a
unifying theory, the arise from the same thing.  Yes, the equation approach
is another path.  Still working its way through my feeble brain.

[Ham]

> I admire your creativity on a difficult subject, Mark.  Without inventing
> analogies, I see an ongoing relationship between the 'differential' and the
> 'holistic' modalities of Essence whereby Absolute Sensibility is completed
> or "perfected".  (I've even alluded to this in my thesis.)  But it is going
> way out on a limb to suggest a metaphysical teleology that we can only
> conjecture.  I'm not saying it's wrong, but I know many here would criticize
> such allusions as injecting "theism" into an ontology where it isn't called
> for.
>

[Mark]
Not be belittle this, but it is all creative conjecturing.  This is why I
say that we create, not find.  We make constellations from the stars. The
terms Theism is overly specified to a certain kind by many.  I have tried to
explain this, but have given up.  Any unifying guiding intelligent personal
force is theism.  It is hard to get away from it.  If Quality is not
personal, then I don't know what it is.  If it is not a guide, then we don't
know how to use it.  If our intellect is not part of Quality, then we have
duality.  There is no randomness, we know what is better.  Our intellect is
part of Quality, so Quality is not stupid.

>
> You seem to have grasped the overall concept, and that is most gratifying
> to me.  You might also check out my Q&A page at
> http://www.essentialism.net/FAQs.htm which deals with some of the more
> controversal points of Essentialism.  (It displays out of line on Mozilla
> browsers but is still readable and may spark more original ideas.)  Any
> suggestions you can offer toward making this philosophy more comprehensible
> would be doing me a great service.
>

[Mark]
I use Safari which seems to display OK.  I will look at the FAQs again.
 Most of my learning comes from dialogue, however.

>
> Meantime, thanks so much for your understanding and thoughtful analysis,
> Mark.
>
>
> 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
>