[MD] Quality and the Higgs Field: An Analogy

[Ham Priday]

Dear John --

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

Your arguments all seem to hang on the notion that morality is intrinsic to 
the universe.
Since I believe that man actualizes the universe from Value, I find it 
difficult to respond to your comments in a way that makes sense to you. 
When I tried to explain the difficulty of dealing with sensibility as an 
'existent', you reduced my explanation to a meaningless aphorism:

[Ham, previously]:
> "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.

[John]:
> 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).

If subjective awareness to you is only a neurological process going on in 
your head, then you reject the core self or 'psyche' as the locus of 
awareness.  Then the thoughts and feelings you experience are not 'yours' 
but are somehow extracted from a "qualitative field" that exists in nature 
or the universe.  My epistemology is based on the belief that 
value-sensibility, and the experience we derive from it, are proprietary to 
the self.

> 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?

As stated above, I believe that the universe is the physical construct of 
man's value-sensibility.  This construct is not just "part of the universe"; 
it's, as you like to say, "the whole enchilada" of what we call existence.

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

I see no point in analyzing animal consciousness when there is so little 
agreement as to the functioning of human consciousness.  I'm not saying that 
animals have no feelings.  Sure, chimps exhibit grief for dead relatives.  A 
dog winces when you step on its foot.  But does this mean that animals share 
man's value-sensibility?  Not only is this impossible to prove empirically, 
but I wouldn't want to bet on 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

I wonder more about humans who question their own self-awareness.

But keep working at your "love and understanding", John.  You won't offend 
anybody, and you may even come to understand that the love and admiration 
you feel for others is your subjective sensibility, not a fragment of 
Quality you've picked up from the universe.

Essentially blockaded,
Ham