[MD] self: agent of action & thinker of thoughts

[Ham Priday]

Hey, Mark --

[Ham, previously]:
> At least we concur that there is a free agent which we can call
> the Self.  What I'm saying is that without a conscious subject
> (self) no value is realized, hence free will is meaningless. ...

[Mark]:
> Yes, we do concur there.  Those that do not have not really
> thought it out, imo.  I would qualify your statement above to say
> that value is interpreted by the Self.  This does not mean that
> value does not exist outside of the Self for certainly others
> experience value as well.  In fact value can be had by all,
>  it is freely available.

Value is interpreted intellectually by the brain to conform experience to 
the parameters of space/time existence.  This interpretation includes 
cognizance of the causal and relational principles (logistical design) of 
the universe, as well as the dynamics involved in the process of evolution. 
I'm not sure what "value exists outside the Self" is supposed to imply.  The 
entire universe experienced by the Self is a construct of Value, and the 
Self is its sensible agent and differentiator.

[Ham, revising his previous comment]:
> The empirical data for anything in the experienced universe are
> derived from Essential Value.  When we differentiate value by
> experiencing it, we construct the objects that represent it.
> Experiential reality is proprietary to each self as is the
> differentiated value realized from experience.

[Mark]:
> This seems like absolute subjectivism, which I do not care much for.
> I know you have a different sense of this, which I am trying to
> intuit, but so far I still believe that trees exist whether or not man
> is present.  I simply cannot grant that level of importance to man.
> So, I would again qualify your statement to say Man experiences those
> trees because they are there, not the other way around. ...

No, it's not absolute subjectivism or solipsism.  But it is subjective to 
the extent that selfness is subjective.  The parameters and dynamics of 
trees, rocks, animals, people, and the solar system are intrinsic (I used 
the word "imbued" before) in Essential Value.  When we differentiate pure 
Value to realize it as Beingness, we apply these design parameters to our 
interpretation of sensory experience, thereby actualizing the objectve 
world.  What you question as "that level of importance" is in fact the power 
of actualization, which is an  intellectual adjunct to the Self's 
value-sensibility.

> I think that the Self's perception that experience is singular to each 
> man,
> I would agree if you were to say that.

I'll say that; so we are in agreement.

> We agree in most things.  I still cannot elevate man to the level of
> creator of things.  As far as I am concerned, we are in the middle of
> a marvelous rainbow.  We cannot create such a thing, it created us.
> However, the entirely personal sense of self is something we do agree
> on.  Many years ago when I was in high-school, I developed a
> thought experiment to test if a soul did indeed exist.  Here it is (I may
> have already presented it):
>
> Imagine if you will that we are so advanced in science that we can
> create an exact replica of ourselves.  With this conjectured ability
> we are seated in a chair facing a blank wall in a small cubicle, and
> made unconscious.  The engineer then sets the buttons and performs the
> scans and does whatever it takes to create an exact copy of us in an
> identical cubicle who is also asleep.  With the touch of a button, he
> wakes both of us up.  Our eyes open and we see a blank white wall.
> Now we hear the engineer say "turn around and look out of the open end
> of the cubicle".  We turn around and look.  There are two possible
> outcomes to this turning and looking.
> 1. We see through two pairs of eyes, and therefore have double vision
> since both of us are looking at different things.
> 2. We only see through one pair of eyes, because the double (which is
> exact in every-way) is a different person.
>
> If you choose 1, you are a materialist
> If you choose 2, you are a spiritualist

A fascinating experiment, Mark, but what does it prove?  I guess it proves 
that I'm a "spiritualist" -- not because my double is "a different person", 
but because both pairs of eyes are looking at the same thing or a reasonable 
facsimile thereof.  (But, as I already have a kind of double-vision, I 
probably should disqualify myself.)  Besides, I'm neither a materialist nor 
a spiritualist but an essentialist, which is a different persuasion 
altogether.  The Essentialist regards materiality as an interpretive product 
of value differentiation.  This doesn't make matter "less real" than the 
Self from the experiential perspective, however.

Toodle-doo,
Ham