[MD] The Dynamics of Value

[X Acto]

Ronsaid:
> 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.

Ham replies:
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. 


Ron:
Here is what needs explanation, you first state that Being is an intellectual
 construct  then you posit it as an objective physical fact, being is an 
organism.

Going along for the time being, with what you are saying, independant observer
is a synthesis, what explains the synthesis? why does it exist? what holds
it together?

Your explanation of Being has many inaccountabilities, If the independant self
is an intellectual generalization of many explanations then it certainly is'nt
independant, whole, and objective is it?

But this is the assumption of fact that your ontology is based apon.

Contradiction again




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

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