[MD] The Dynamics of Value

[Ham Priday]

Mark --

> I think you are pointing towards the observer.  Something I have
> termed as the true subjective.  Differentiation may happen when
> the brain sorts input in a meaningful way, but such differentiation
> is not the subjective.  Such differentiation is then witnessed by the
> subjective.

You are splitting hairs, but "witnessed by the subjective" is probably as 
accurate as any word description for self-awareness can be.  My point, 
however, is that separating out the conscious self must be primary to what 
that self observes or experiences of otherness.  Technically speaking, 
proprietary sensibility is the fundamental unit of "selfness".  And that 
sensibility has but one metaphysical referent to draw upon: namely, the 
Value of Essence.

> To find such a thing with our current technology, results in nothing
> measurable.  I believe it is this true subjective that would be negation
> itself, to use your terminology.  It is the process behind such 
> differentiation
> that I am after.  Negation is fine, but being a scientist I would say that
> the number one is negated by the number negative one.  This is why I
> asked whether Absolute Essence was the mirror image of what is.  Now,
> the possibilities of what is, is endless, which would make such essence
> absolute, but not in the same way you are proposing.

It's time to swap your scientist's cap for a philosopher's fez, Mark,  The 
self (negate) is not a quantum entity like an atom or particle, so it can't 
be quantified or measured and will never be "discovered" by technology.
Nonetheless, it is the locus of awareness in the experiential world of 
relational phenomena.  As for your suggested analogy of Essence being a 
"mirror image of what is", I would turn this around and say that cognizant 
experience is a diffracted image of what absolutely is.  Do not confuse 
Absolute with infinite or "endless possibilities".  The domain of 
cause-and-effect and resultant possibility is Existence.  That which IS 
absolutely is not possibility but essential Oneness.  All otherness is a 
negation of that Essence.

I leave you with three of the most profound insights in literary history to 
meditate upon:

"The divine One is a negation of negations.  Every creature contains a 
negation: one denies that it is the other.  [Even] an angel denies that it 
is any other creature; but God contains the denial of denials: He is the One 
who denies of every other that he is anything except himself." [Meister 
Eckhart]

"The first principle cannot be other, either than an other or than nothing, 
and likewise is not opposed to anything." [Nicholas of Cusa]

"For now we see through a glass darkly, but then face to face; now I know IN 
PART, but then shall I know even as also I AM KNOWN." [I Corinthians, 
emphasis mine]

Essentially yours,
Ham