[MD] Quality and the Higgs Field: An Analogy

[John Carl]

Ok Ham, let's see if there's anything of value to find in our dialogue and
furthur it along:


I beg to differ.  Amoral means "being neither moral nor immoral" -- in other
> words, free of or "indifferent to" morality.  Morality is man's concern,
> because man is the sensible agent of Value, which alone determines what
> goodness and badness are.  Morality doesn't "bring about life"; Nature does,
> and Nature manifests the teleogical design of existential reality.  Music is
> the creation of man, and beauty is man's aesthetic response to value.
>
>
Yes, I fully comprehend the difference between "amoral" and "immoral" -
which is why I object to your intellectual formulation that morality does
exist, but the universe that it exists in is "amoral".  That doesn't make
sense, Ham.




> "Demonstrably" only in the sense that it is realized by the sensible agent.
> To say that Morality "exists" independently of sensibility (i.e., as an
> intrinsic feature of the universe) is to posit a myth.  Without conscious
> sensibility there is no morality.  Morality is a code of social behavior
> instituted by man to reflect his value sensibility.
>
>

Quality is subjective, in other words.  "All in your head".  I've heard this
many times in this world, but I don't agree with you (or them).



>
> Man "actualizes" beingness, which is the substance of existential reality.
> So, whatever morality is ascribed to the universe is a construct of man's
> value sensibility.
>
>

So?  Don't you believe that constructs of man's value sensibility are part
of the universe?  If not, then how can we talk about them?

Animals, and other life forms, "exhibit" what we interpret as moral
> behavior.  Most of this is instinctual, that is, a genetic characteristic
> that ensures the survival of the species.



"Instinct" is just a word to indicate ignorance.  When we cannot posit a
mechanistic explanation for animal behavior, we say "instinct".  Do animals
share similar emotional responses with humans?  You tell me.

http://theweek.com/article/index/211663/how-chimps-mourn-their-dead




> Thus, you might conclude from behavioral evidence that animals are capable
> of value realization, but there's no way to prove this empirically.  It
> would be like trying to prove that iron filings "love" a magnet because they
> are attracted to it.
>
>
There's no way to prove that human animals are capable of emotion either,
but it's the ole Occam's razor that since they sure seem to, then that's the
easiest (best) explanation.

Although sometimes I sincerely wonder about *some* humans ...



> More euphemisms based on deductions from observed behavior.  Really, John,
> you
> should learn the difference between teleology and morality.  If you design
> a machine to open tin cans, and it does that successfully, does this mean
> you've made it "moral"?  Physical existence is experienced as an evolving
> "process" whose course manifests the design of its creator.  The symmetry,
> order, and goodness of the universe are man's intellectual representations
> of Essence-Value actualized as "beingness".
>
>
Well... I guess that's one way of putting it.  But again, it doesn't seem
the simplest and best to me.  We were talking about the psychological
motivation behind the metaphysical worldview we choose, and you denied this
point as irrelevant, but I really gotta wonder when I see the bizarre
lengths you go to, simply to distance yourself from the wellsprings of life,
to intellectually codify goodness as "intellectuaI representations of
Essence-Value actualized as "beingness" just seems to me to be such an
extreme example of unnecessary complication - a huge kludge - I mean really
Ham.


[John]:
>
>  Exactly.  Morality is a scale, a line of good and bad.  That is the
>> moral order - not that everything is good, but that there IS a
>> difference between good and bad.  If the universe was purely
>> amoral, there would be no difference between good and bad.
>>
>
> Ham:


> But, you see, the "difference" is your perception.


John:

My perception of what exactly?  If the universe is intrinsically amoral,
then what am I perceiving?

Ham:



>  As a negated subject, your experience of "reality" is differentiated by
> the nothingness of your being.  Everything you experience is divided from
> everything else by that nothingness.  You, yourself, are an "other" to the
> Oneness of Essence; your only connection with the Absolute Source is your
> realized Value.
>
>
John:

Yeah, keep telling yourself that big guy.  Maybe one day you'll finally
convince yourself.  Till then, I doubt you're gonna have much success with
perpetuation of your ideas.  I mean, if you want you can really believe in
the "nothingness of your being" but it's gonna be hard to convince me of
mine!  Like John Lennon famously answered when asked "what do you see when
you turn out the light?"  -  "I can't tell you, but I *know* it's mine".


Ham:

Love and understanding are very nice.



John:

Ya think?

Ham:

They express your respect for fellow creatures.


John:

Without which, my beingness really would be nothing.

Ham:


> I'm not so sure about the "biodiversity", but let nature take its course.
>
>
John:

Without biodiversity, being really would be nothing.

Ham:


> Thanks for the blessing, John.  (Maybe you can explain "biodiversity" to me
> at a later time.)
>
>
John:

Simple, really.  How can you experience "differentiation" if everything is
the same?  That's the intellectual realization.  The biological fact is that
everything that is alive, depends upon everything else for its life.



> Still seeing through the glass clearly,
>
> Ham
>
>
John:

You might see through clear glass, but its with eyes clouded by obfuscatory
wordification... but hey, I appreciate you anyway, big guy.  You help me to
clarify cloudy subjectivity.