[MD] Quality and the Higgs Field: An Analogy

[118]

On Tue, Feb 1, 2011 at 1:02 PM, Ham Priday <hampday1 at verizon.net> wrote:
>>
> 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.

[Mark]
I am fine with that, let's call it Value.  It is what pulls us.
>

[Ham]
> 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.

[Mark]
To stay in agreement, I would say that the Design is Value.  The
design creates what we see, so does Value (or Quality).  I do not
think there is a differentiation between the design and our
appreciation of it, it is all design.  Otherwise one would have to
create a dualistic world and explain how it became dualistic.
>
[Ham]
> 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.

[Mark]
I would retort that the Creator is Quality.  This is what I have been
saying.  It seems logical to me.  How do you envision the Creator?  We
can sense the creator as Quality all around us, this is no different
from what Eckhart would say.

The awarness/beingness is what I have referred to as the Avatar.  This
is something separate from the brain or thoughts, it is what is aware
of those things.  Thus awareness/beingness becomes spiritual/physical.
 I would agree that Value holds things together, it has to, it creates
them, there is nothing else between them.  Without Value (or perhaps
more appropriately, Quality) we would not sense any difference between
things.  What a dull world, there would be no dimensions, everything
would exist within a single point.  Fortunately there was a big bang
created by Quality (or something).  Or in an ever fluxing universe, it
creates the flux.

Again, you may ask why I call it Quality.  That is because in our
human incarnation that is what we call it.  I suppose a plant may call
it fjapeoingly.
>
> Now, here's where our disagreement begins:
>
[Mark]
Ohboy..
>
[Ham]
> 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.

[Mark]
Yes, disagreement.  Your premise is that the creator makes difference
and that Quality is a result of that.  I say that Quality does the
whole thing.  A river sees value in finding the best path to the
ocean.  This is no different from us finding value in the shortest
distance to work.  Your sense of consciousness is quite
anthropomorphic.  I am not sure if you can differentiate humans from
the rest of the world in that way.  Just because we can talk together
about it only makes it human, not fundamentallyl different.

And, it is not the opposite, it is just a different perspective.
>
[Ham]
> 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.

[Mark]
Well, I am not sure what principle I am violating.  Where does your
designer come from?  Quality has always existed, as has the
differences it creates.  The phenomenon we experience is due to the
unperceivable gaps between.  The gaps are not physical, they are ones
of quality.  Good and evil have such a divide.  What is in between
good and evil?  I would say Quality.  And it doesn't matter what you
consider good or evil.  When we experience phenomenon and have a
judgement, we are experiencing Quality, not the things separately.
I'll sell you that premise for a charm.
>
[Mark before]
>> 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.
>
[Ham]
> 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.

[Mark]
Analogue as opposed to digital.  Continuous as opposed to stochastic.
Let's not forget that the strip is but one part, the movie is also
created by the movement of strip.  That is why I say you are
intellectualizing.  You are looking at the pieces and not the whole.
I am fine to drop it, although, I love analogies so thanks for that.
>
> [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.

[Mark]
Interconnection or conjunction is of value because of its difference
from something else.  I am not saying things are separated, I am
saying that we make comparisons.  Comparisons provide value, and that
can only happen when things are compared.  When we compare and judge,
we are pointing to Quality, not to the objects themselves.   Again, if
we lived in a world that was only one shade of white, there would be
no quality.  With all the colors and shades, we live in a Quality rich
world.

I am not dispensing with the Primary Source; to the contrary, I am
calling it Quality.
>
[Ham]
> 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.

[Mark]
I do not think it is a stalemate, it is just a difference of
perspective.  The results are the same.
>
All the best,
Mark

> 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
>