[MD] The Dynamics of Value

[Ham Priday]

Greetings, Ron --

> Your Ontology fails to explain the independant observer,
> it starts with its assumption of being.
> and clearly one must explain it's being if one wants a
> complete Ontological explanation.

Precisely what is it you need me to explain, Ron?

"Being" is an intellectual construct of value-sensibility, just as is 
"Nothingness".  Without these precepts we could not recognize ourselves as 
human beings.  Together with Sensibility, they account for our experience of 
an objective reality.  At birth we borrow from Being the organism that is 
not only our objective identity but the instrument of our proprietary 
experience.  The appearance of everything else follows from this synthesis. 
Although we view it as a cause-and-effect process in time, existential 
reality is a negational and transitory mode of Essence that enables its 
value to be realized by an autonomous, external agent.

Essential value is not limited to qualitative or esthetic realization, but 
encompasses the intelligent order of the universe and its relational 
constituents, the symmetry of logic and mathematics, as well as the ability 
to communicate and collaborate as individuals in the shaping of a more 
perfect world.  Can anyone deny that this is literally "the opportunity of a 
lifetime"?  Why, then, are we still goveling in darkenss and the dirt?

Yours for the "betterness" of mankind (in an amoral universe).

--Ham


[Andre, previously]:
> What you are saying here Ham are (literally) intellectual observations
> after the event. I still tend to think that you want the positing of an
> independent observer, an independent object and the 'something' that
> 'happens' between the two without any 'primary' connection.

No, Andre, you read me incorrectly. I assume that "the event" refers to
experience. If so, our cognizance of events (observation) represents our
intellectual interpretation of experience. (The time sequence is of no
importance.)

The "independent observer" is crucial for the realization of value and its
objectification of otherness (physical reality). And value-sensibility holds
these contingencies together as negated "essents". But while Value is our
"primary connection" to Essence, it is the negation of Essence that 
actualizes
the differential nature of finitude. Hence, negation is primary to 
difference
(the Self/Other dichotomy), and individuated Sensibility is primary to the
(space/time) appearance of finite existents.

Here's the bottom line: The ontology of Essentialism supports the theory 
that
Absolute Essence is the "unmoved mover" which transcends the dynamics of
negation.

I hope this clarifies your misconception.

Essentially speaking,
Ham