[MD] The Dynamics of Value

[Ham Priday]

Hi Alex --


> So guess that what you're really interested in is what in MoQ
> was termed dynamic quality. I think you really shouldn't define that,
> because by defining it, you propose to know what it is, and then it
> wouldn't be dynamic or transcendental or whatever you may wish
> to call it.  I think that the ability to continuously reform yourself is
> the only "pattern" of dynamic to be found. You just have to be
> open minded.

Yes, I am really interested in the primary source of reality, because if we 
don't take it into account we will never have a complete ontological thesis.

However, I don't understand the premise you 've presented as an argument 
against definition.  There is no logical reason that a concept like DQ or 
Essence cannot be defined.  It may be indescribable, unknowable, or beyond 
empirical reach, but then so are God, Perfection, and absolute Goodness. 
Yet we have defined them, because we understand what such attributes 
ultimately must be.  You say that "by defining it, it wouldn't be dynamic or 
transcendent."  Why should a definition limit or affect the nature of that 
which transcends word meanings?

Back in the 15th century, a mathematician and astronomer named Nicholas of 
Cusa theorized that God is the uncreated "Not-other".  The significance of 
this theory is profound.  It has afforded philosophers a valuable 
metaphysical tool - a definitive label for the ineffable Source whose 
attributive nature is otherwise indefinable.  I have used Cusa's First 
Principle as the metaphysical foundation of Essentialism.

Does Dynamic Quality accurately name the Source whose "dynamics" are 
unknowable and whose "quality" is realizable only to man?   I think not. 
The term "dynamic" suggests a flow or movement like evolution, which applies 
to the physical world but not to a transcendent source.  I happen to believe 
this uncreated source does not evolve or change, but is immutable. That's 
why I have named this metaphysically necessary source Absolute Essence. 
It's a non-descriptive appellation, yet one that is relevant and logically 
workable for an ontological scheme.

Of course, I realize that it may not be appropriate in this forum to depart 
"too much" from the author's vernacular.  At the same time, constantly 
throwing words like "dynamic", "static", and "patterns" around with 
impunity, without really knowing what they infer, tends to conflate ideas 
into meaningless "word games" that have little bearing on philosophical 
concepts.  I really hope Mark can successfully apply his "logical constants" 
to metaphysical axioms so that we can avoid the misconceptions that careless 
word usage generates.

Thanks for your inputs, Alex (may I address you by that name?).  I am only 
acquainted with Huxley's 'Brave New World," but will investigate "Island", 
which, as you say, may present his idea of a more positive world.

Essentially yours,
Ham