[MD] The Dynamics of Value

[Ham Priday]

Hi Mark:


There is currently a flow of posts under two thread headings, including 
yours, so it's difficult to respond to all the assertions and challenges. 
I've chosen this message because it chronicles the struggle of "a problem 
working towards a solution" and it seems to beg for help.


> OK, now I see direction, and possible resolution.  My question
> is directed towards the "we" stated above that "borrows".  It is the
> essence of that "we" that I will bite into.  I realize that this requires
> analogy which is imperfect at best.  If you misspoke with that
> sentence, let me know.
>
> Does the "we" that borrows exist in the same way that the concept
> of Atman does?  In Western religion this is termed the soul, but the
> connotations there are messy at best.  As I understand it, such a
> thing is what is differentiated.  The analogies fail me as to how to
> express it.  My intuition tells me that it is beyond the physical, but
> this makes me sound a bit religious which is something that I do not
> want to start again.  If we deal with this topic philosophically, using
> abstract concepts (mixed with a little scientific terminology), is there
> a way to express the how in terms other than negation?

It's been a while since I perused the Hindu Bhagavad-Gita, so I'd prefer not 
to draw comparisons with Atman that may be confusing.

I used the term "borrowed" in the sense that having experience (i.e., being 
aware) is dependent on the sensory organs of a biological body. The body is 
said "to exist" because it is objective even to the subject who identifies 
with it.  Conversely, the knowing self is not an object.  So, empirically 
speaking, it does not exist.  Now, the term I use for a known entity which 
cannot be defined as an existent is "essent".  The knowing self, however, is 
only the "sensible" contingent of the essent "otherness"; in fact, it is a 
negation of Essence in the first instance.

So that, considered from a "scientific perspective", being-aware is what you 
might call a "polarized" dichotomy: e.g., Sensibility/Otherness = 
Negate/Essent.  In other words, it is the hypostasized relation of two 
mutually exclusive, yet interdependent substantialities.  (A lot of 
multi-syllabic words, agreed; but I'm trying to explain an abstract concept 
"mixed with a little scientific terminology", as you requested.)

As for "negation" being a troublesome term that calls for an alternative 
explication, perhaps you can suggest one.  I have used "exclusion" and 
"exclusionary" in my online thesis to describe the dynamics of Creation. 
But I doubt that it's any more comprehensible than negation which, after 
all, is a "denial" of sorts, as Meister Eckhart demonstrated.  Negation, 
incidentally, goes hand in hand with "differentiation", since anything 
negated is an "other" to anything else.  So there is dialectical merit in 
staying with the term.

Finally, I was amused by the thought of how Eckhart would have reacted to 
your dread of sounding "a bit religious" when "going beyond the physical". 
Why, that might offend Pirsig!

My god, man, metaphysics is the exploration of what is beyond the physical! 
Everything we've been discussing -- Creation, Nothingness, Sensibility, 
Otherness, Essence --they're ALL beyond the physical.  Are we so elitist in 
this secular age that we dare not mention religion in this context?   Isn't 
it the height of arrogance for this finite, groveling creature who doesn't 
even know what he's experiencing, let alone how he got here, to fear he 
might be venturing into spiritual territory?  (Sorry Mark, but I had to get 
this off my chest.)

Has any of this been helpful in getting you to your ontological destination?

Cheers, and Happy Halloween,
Ham