[MD] Quality and the Higgs Field: An Analogy

[Ham Priday]

Hi Mark --


On Tues, Feb 1, 2011 at 5:37 AM, Mark <ununoctiums at gmail.com> wrote:

> You seem to be defining what I would call Quality.  Yes, Quality
> precedes our intellectual awareness of it.  Quality also make up our
> intellectual awareness.  We are not estranged from Quality as some
> would suggest.  We are part and parcel.  Excellence is one
> expression of Quality, but there are many many more.  We sense
> Quality and are then driven by it to make choices.  Such choices are
> between physical objects or actions.  We do not create Value by
> making a choice.

I agree that Value equates to Quality as you've described it above. 
However, I don't think "quality" is a suitable aphorism for intellectual 
values like Freedom, Harmony, Morality, and Wisdom, nor for psycho-emotional 
values such as Love, Symmetry, Beauty, and Goodness.
For that reason, and because Essence is valuistic in nature (rather than 
"qualitative"), I prefer the term Value overall for that which evokes desire 
and attraction for the subjective agent.

> For something to be relational, it must compare two (or more) things.
> Without the differentiation of such things there would be no Quality.
> Something of high quality cannot exist without something of lower
> quality.  It is this difference that we sense, not the actual objects.
> For purposes of discussion we allude to the physical things
> themselves, but this is merely to connect it to the physical world.
> This is a Yin Yang approach.

I agree that Value (Quality) is a measure of comparability, and is therefore 
relational in principle.  What I cannot accept is the idea that Value serves 
to divide or differentiate existents.  As I've explained before, the order 
and arrangement of experiential reality reflects the 'intelligent design' of 
its creator.  Dialectically this design is a "given" -- an a priori system, 
the differentiation of which is a consequence of the primary dichotomy: 
Sensibility/Otherness.
This dichotomy represents the creation (i.e., negation) of Difference, as 
does all contrariety experienced in the world of appearances that we call 
existence.

> I am not sure why you would call forth something such as Otherness
> when it is not necessary.  Why should we need to appropriate it, if it
> is already there.  I understand that there is being and not being.
> That is a function of the physical body.  We sense what our body
> allows us to.  I suppose if you mean being without body is Otherness,
> then I get your point.  Still, it is creation, not negation.

The ex nihilo principle necessitates a Creator, and neither Quality nor 
Value has the power to create.  These attributes of undivided Essence do not 
stand alone but can only be perceived or realized differentially by a 
sensible agent.  Metaphysically the initial "act" of creation is to produce 
Difference -- the appearance of an "other" that Essence is not by a 
"sensible agent" that otherness is not.  Two negatives make a "positive" (of 
sorts): the appearance of Being.  Now, there is a way to shortcut this 
dichotomy which may appeal to you; namely, to define it simply as 
'Awareness/Beingness'.  The co-dependent contingencies are differentiated 
negationally and held together affirmatively (by Value), just as are the 
contingents of Sensibility/Otherness, and the retitled dichotomy is 
self-descriptive, thus more suitable for our purposes.  .

Now, here's where our disagreement begins:

> Quality is what creates relativity, it is not relative.  It underlies
> such relativity. Yes, we do not "see" the separation of height, but
> we sense it.  This is an example of our sensing of Quality.  I
> would say that my take on the intellectual precept would be just
> the opposite of yours, that is seeing the steps.  The non-intellectual
> precept would be intuiting the quality behind the height difference.

Difference, not Quality, creates relativity.  And Difference is prior to the 
sense of Value, because Value is not sensible without a conscious agent. 
Furthermore, abstracting the principle of elevation as it applies to a 
staircase is not "sensing Quality";  it's intellection -- dealing with 
precepts to form logical conclusions.  Experience is derived from 
value-sensibility, whereas intellectual understanding comes from 
manipulating symbols. That your precept amounts to "the opposite" of mine 
should give you pause.

In positing Quality as both differentiator and creator, you are trying to 
eliminate the Source, which violates the ex nihilo principle.  Difference 
and Contrariety, like Symmetry and Balance, are inherent in the design of 
finitude for which Essence ('essent-value') is directly accountable.  All 
natural laws and physical principles are rooted in this universal design. 
The qualities and/or values that we perceive in existence relate to the 
phenomena experienced, not to the unperceivable gaps or differences between 
them.  Frankly, I cannot buy your premise.

> It would seem you are differentiating between a quantum reality,
> and an analogue one.  If a quantum brain is sensing a quantum reality,
> perhaps that makes it analogue.  I am not sure what you are
> referring to in terms of virtual reality.  If we are indeed Avatars,
> then this is all virtual reality.  To use your analogy, stopping the film
> at each frame would be intellectualizing the movie, not experiencing it.

If existence is your "quantum reality", then, yes, I am distinguishing the 
primary source (Essence) from the created world.  As I am an essentialist, 
why should this surprise you?  And what do you mean by "analogue" in this 
context?  Incidentally, I chose the word "virtual" for the very reason you 
cite.  Stopping the film at each frame doesn't "intellectualize" anything, 
it simply demonstrates what the film strip is composed of.  But let's put 
the motion picture analogy past us; it was a poor attempt to illustrate the 
time frame mode of experience.

[More on Mark's apples]:
> My point is that Man can only create value by discerning
> differences between things.  It is such differences that provide
> value.  In this way, it is what creates these differences that
> creates value.  I call that creator, Quality, because that is what
> it is.  We appreciate the separation of things, we appreciate
> Quality.

I don't see that we appreciate the separation of things more than their 
interconnection or conjunction, or that differences "provide" value.  If 
difference is rooted in the cosmos, it has no affect on value and it 
certainly doesn't create it.  Again, Quality cannot be a creator because it 
doesn't "exist" in the absence of a sensible agent.  Listen to me, Mark:
You can't dispense with the Primary Source.  That argument has already been 
refuted by smarter people than you and me.

To avoid getting booted for 10K excesses, I'm going to stop here.  (If 
others really want to review how we got to this point (which is doubtful), 
they can refer to our previous posts or visit the MD archive.

Thanks for all your contributions, and let me know if you think you can 
resolve the stalemate.

Still essentially yours,
Ham