[MD] The Dynamics of Value

[118]

Hi Ham,
You are correct that I left you little to respond to.  I tried to refresh
where we had left off about a year ago, but found it hard to mimic the
mindset I was in.  Perhaps I have learned more and progressed, one can only
hope.  I did read Heidegger which did not do me much good as I am not
trained in the subject.  I could follow it logically, but it provided little
meaning.

I admit to not understanding the ontology as you present it, and will
continue to ask the dumb questions.  In terms of whether it coexists with
Quality can only be determined for me once I have a meaningful comprehension
of both.  I do understand that there are premises which may seem to
antagonize each other, but redemption is always possible.

Yes, the negation of essence.  My question is why does something have to be
negated in order to exist?  Is it not possible to have creation (not the
religious kind but the sensible kind) without negation?  I am not asking
about first principle, or what happened first, but why is an absolute source
is necessary to explain our sensibility?  Again, from before, we can say
that light negates darkness, but a simpler explanation would be that light
fills darkness.  In this case darkness is indeed a background.

The quiddity you speak of implies potential.  We translate such potential
into our consciousness.  This would be similar to my notion of the
waterwheel harnessing the waterfall to create energy.  Your premise seems to
point to a much more fundamental translation (or differentiation if you
want).  It is in the tern negation that I have a problem.  If negation is
the translational operator, it leaves a lot of questions concerning the
attributes of such negation.  This is where I got stuck before, I think.  To
understand a premise, I need more details or analogies.

Thanks for your insight,

Mark

On Tue, Oct 26, 2010 at 11:24 AM, Ham Priday <hampday1 at verizon.net> wrote:

>
> G'day Mark --
>
>
>  At this point, I have to say that I haven't learned enough yet, from my
>> side, to be able to provide added response.  I believe you know what
>> my problems with this ontology is, and I confess that they come from
>> my side.  The interpretation doesn't provide much more than light
>> negating dark.  However, I am always interested to read a new angle
>> on this and ask questions since that is how I learn.
>>
>> So, can this Absolute Essence be seen as the background of what
>> we are negating, or is the Essence actually differentiated itself, like a
>> cobweb is visually differentiated with dew drops?
>>
>
> I would expect your problems with my ontology to "come from [your] side",
> Mark.  Let's try to identify them and come to some kind of agreement. Before
> we go any further, however, please understand that I make no claim to
> represent or imitate Pirsig's thesis.  When I parenthetically cite MoQ
> terms, it is intended only to provide a familiar reference point for the
> concept at hand.  Now to your question...
>
> First of all, Absolute Essence is more than a "background".  It is the
> substance or "quiddity" of reality.  And, because it is absolute, it is the
> very antithesis of differentiation.  This is implicit in Cusa's First
> Principle (see my most recent post to Alexander).  Indeed, "Not-other" can
> have no other meaning than Absolute Oneness.
>
> Negation is a troublesome term for many, and using it as a synonym for
> "creation" seems to confound the most logically astute in this forum.  This
> was a concept developed by Hegel who postulated that experiential existence
> is Appearance.  To actualize this appearance, "being" is negated - that is,
> reflected in an image or "recognized" - which implies subjective cognizance
> of an objective "other".  Value can be perceived only when it exists as an
> other to the perceiver, that is, when Awareness is differentiated from
> Beingness.  All otherness is differentiated appearance; and what
> differentiates it is the nothingness interspersed between finite phenomena
> in the process of experience.  Since the observing subject itself is a
> "negate", the experience of specific objects and events is the result of
> negation by a negate.  This "secondary negation" reduces essent-value
> relative to a particular being or object.
>
> Now, experience is the process of appropriating essent-value for oneself
> and objectifying the being that this value represents.  In Sartre's
> vernacular, this exemplifies one's "desire for the being of the other."  Of
> course, we cannot have another's "being"; we can only have our own.  But
> what we can, and do, appropriate for ourselves is the "essence" of the
> other's being. And inasmuch as all beingness, including ourselves, is
> negated Essence which we only sense valuistically, what we really experience
> is "essent-value". which is to say the Value of Essence objectivized as
> finite "essents" --  things and events that represent our value-sensibility.
>
> As you and Alex have noted, I am persuaded that the dynamics of value play
> a significant role in creating our "real world" experience, and am anxious
> to develop and advance this concept, whether or not it is compatible with
> Mr. Pirsig's metaphysics.
>
> Incidentally, have you any more ideas on the application of physical
> constants to express metaphysical axioms?  I know I haven't provided much
> support toward this approach, but still believe it has dialectical
> possibilities.
>
> Thanks for keeping this thread alive, Mark.
>
> Best regards,
> Ham
>
>
>
> 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
>