[MD] The Dynamics of Value

[118]

Hi Ham,
Yes, the metaphysical side of what is, that is what I think we are
discussing.  Of course it can only be described through analogy, and your
analogies are useful.  The word negation imparts (to me) a process by which
something is opposed dramatically, or diminished to zero.  The number one is
negated by multiplying it by zero, for example.  This implies an active
process which I believe you are referring to.  It is that process that I am
trying to get a hold of through questions.

Indeed, as you say, one could envision it as feeding, but it is obviously
more than that because as I understand it, it also creates the feeder (this
is just my interpretation of your words).  So Essence is a whole and what we
conceive is the negation of that whole.  This is done by differentiation.
 Again, such differentiation describes a process.  Any process of negation
that I can think of requires an opposing principle, kind of the yin yang if
you will.  The presence of opposing tendencies can be meaningful without the
need for negation.

Again, it is a description of the process beyond the term negation that I am
after.

Cheers,
Mark

On Wed, Oct 27, 2010 at 8:43 AM, Ham Priday <hampday1 at verizon.net> wrote:

>
> Dear Mark --
>
>
>  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 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.
>>
>
> If created existence were an "addition" to the uncreated Source, Essence
> would not be absolute.  Logically, you can't expand or extend what is
> already absolute.  (Remember my analogy of the mountain climber who can only
> progress downward fom the summit?)  Everything that exists has to be negated
> from the Source.  Think of Creation as a "reduction" of Essence.  Your
> "created web" of existence begins with Difference, and Difference must
> logically be a negation of what is eternally absolute and immutable.
>
>  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.
>>
>
> Essence is, indeed, "absolute potentiality", as both Hegel and Heidegger
> have duly noted and Eckhart has implied.  But since negation is not a change
> or act on the part of the absolute Source, we can only define it as the
> creational "modality" of Essence.  Thus, from the finite perspective,
> Essence is negational.  Metaphysically, however, Essence "begets otherness"
> by negating Nothingness.  This sets up a dichotomy between negated
> Sensibility (the 'negate' or sensible self) and Otherness (the 'essent' or
> ordered beingness) which together comprise our existential reality.
>
> As the individuated observer, the negate is drawn to the value of what it
> is denied (estranged from) as a human being.  Human beings are
> value-sensible creatures.  Like the thirsty butterfly on the flower petal,
> we sap the "essence" of our valuistic reality, leaving only its objective
> appearance as our experienced object.  Pirsig describes DQ as the source of
> Reality.  I describe Value as the ground of Existence.  Ultimately, however,
> both the world of appearances and the Value-sensibility that actualizes it
> have their source in  Absolute Essence.
>
> I hope my analogies are not too far-fetched.to help resolve some of your
> questions.  You'll note that I put more emphasis on the "metaphysical side"
> of reality, because that's the side we need to acknowledge and comprehend if
> we are to complete this Value ontology.
>
> Again, many thanks for bearing with me, Mark.
>
> Essentially yours,
> 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
>