[MD] Quality and the Higgs Field: An Analogy

[118]

Hi Ham,

On Mon, Feb 7, 2011 at 11:57 PM, Ham Priday <hampday1 at verizon.net> wrote:
> Hey, Mark --


>[Ham]
> Well, then, if your Quality is the creator and the equivalent of the Tao,
> you are defining it as the Primary Source.  This, of course, I reject on the
> ground that what is
> "primary" cannot be dependent on something else, and Quality depends on a
> conscious agent.  Not even Eckhart would have accepted that definition for
> 'IS-ness'.

[Mark]
OK, we can disagree here.  For me, the conscious agent depends on
Quality.  This is simply the flip side of what you propose.  In this
way, it is just a matter of perspective, and we can bring in the
principle of co-dependence to rectify the difference. It seems to me
that a conscious agent per se cannot be the source of what is
perceived, it has no means for doing that.  You prefer to empower the
conscious agent with that ability, I don't.  We would agree that if I
term the conscious agent as a part of Quality then such a notion of
mine would be amenable to you.  Thus we would have Quality sensing
Quality, which is not as redundant as it sounds.  Again, Quality is
what creates qualitative differences.  Such differences do not reside
within the objects being compared, only between.  By providing a means
for comparing and "realizing" Value, Quality is the basis for all
differences which mean something to us.  We may have the ability to
choose when something has meaning or not, such a thing is called
attitude, however, it does not mean that we create the difference that
we are sensing personal meaning in.
>
[Ham]>
> In what way does Value imply action?  Value evokes love, longing, desire,
> awe, appreciation, and pleasure, among other emotional feelings.  Is this an
> "action"?

[Mark]
Yes it is action.  Value is a result of comparison.  We have desire as
opposed to lack of it.  This is temporal in nature.  If everything was
awe, then we would not know it exists, just like the countless other
things that we do not know exist.  (We do not know what we do not
know).  What we know is through comparison.  To value something is to
make it more than something else.  This is an active process.
>
[Ham]
>
> I don't see how the chicken/egg analogy applies to the primary source --
>  especially for one who understands that cause-and-effect is an intellectual
> precept of temporal experience.  If forces existed before they were
> manifested, they would have had to be conceived by a 'supernatural' creator
> before there was any awareness of Quality or Value.  Whatever label you
> apply to the primary source, it must be "uncreated" and self-sufficient.  A
> physical force posseses neither of these attributes, nor does Quality.

[Mark]
The point was, that a primary source as you are using it, implies an
entity that creates something outside itself.   Quality, by creating
creates itself; this is self creation.  In this way a primary source
is both creative and created.  If one envisions a separate creator,
then this logically begs the question what created the creator?   The
notion of such a form of creation (what wasn't there before), works
both ways, both for the created and for the creator.  We cannot have
separate rules for each entity.  Well, we can, I suppose, but it is
not necessary.
>>
>[Ham]
> Abstract thought is the intellectual product of the thinker.  Even the
> courts acknowledge published thoughts as the "private property" of the
> orginator or creator.

[Mark]
Well, the courts be damned.  Where does an abstract thought come from?
 How does it materialize?  Can one say that it is created?  I am not
sure.  I have to say, however, that I am still working this one out,
so I will leave it for the time being, and not argue on that point.
>

> Atheism is the disbelief (rejection of) a deity or god, irrespective of
> religion or dogma.  I applied that term to your ontology before you
> qualified it above.  By positing Quality as "the source" you are now putting
> it on the same "deistic pedestal" as my Essence, so I'll withdraw the
> appellation.  But if "the larger intelligence" you refer to is that of the
> Source, intelligence must be an aspect of Quality, no?

[Mark]
My view is not rejecting any deity or god.  We could say we put
Quality on a pedestal, but I do not see it that way.  I do not worship
Quality.  I do not thank it every day for what it brings me.  But, for
it to be at the same level as your Essence is indeed of value to me.
And, yes, intelligence is an apparition of Quality.  If one analyzes
the nature of intelligence one can see that it operates through
Qualitative processes.
>
>> Ham, I wanted to digress here a bit, since it seems that I have not
>> explained Quality as separation in an understandable way to you.
>> I will present two analogies to see if this helps.
>>
>> The first analogy is the stock market.  To make the market useful,
>> one desires to buy low and sell high.  The money is made in the
>> separation of the low from the high.  Therefore, it does not matter
>> what the absolute prices of the stock are, what separates them is
>> important.  A trader does not look at the absolute prices, but at
>> the differences between the purchase and possible sale prices.
>> The trader looks at the Quality of the trade.  In the same way,
>> when we make choices between apples, we do not look at the
>> apples themselves, but at the difference (Quality) between them.
>> It is this separation we look at.
>>
>> The second deals with a hypothetical line in the universe.  Let's say
>> that this line embodies Quality in a progressive way from low to high.
>> If we take a single point on this line, we have no way of knowing
>> what the Quality is since the line is infinite in both directions.  We
>> can only know Quality by referencing that point to another point on
>> the line.  In this way, things cannot contain Quality or Value.  Such
>> a thing can only be realized (to use your words) by focussing on the
>> separation.
>>
>> So, I am not saying that Quality is what is between atoms or houses
>> in order for them to be separated.  I would say, however, that
>> at any level, be it the molecular or astronomical, it is possible to see
>> Quality as separating one thing from another.  In our simplistic
>> realization of the world, we may not immediately see a qualitative
>> difference between apples and oranges.  However, if we spend
>> enough time on such a thing, we find that one is of higher quality
>> than another at a particular time (if we need to choose, that is).
>> So, Quality is not static, it is not physical, and it is not embodied by
>> things, it is what separates them.  Quality is realized in the moment.
>> While memory can sometimes bring out Quality, it can be fickle.
>
[Ham]
> Okay, I think I've got the principle.  It's more a qualitative difference or
> distinction than a quantitative or spacial separation of things.  Still,
> what we are aware of as "quality" or "value" is not the "line (scale) of
> difference" per se but the object or event observed; so you haven't yet
> convinced me that Quality alone differentiates.

[Mark]
I am working on it.  It is not a matter of convincing you of an
absolute truth, it is providing you a sense of quality for my view.
It does not necessarily need to displace any other view.
>
>> Again, I have no problem talking about creators or Gods,
>> I do it all the time with friends of mine.  I often find it mind
>> expanding. I just didn't want to complicate the thread.
>> What (or who) is your creator?
>
Ham
> Since I don't distinguish religion from philosophy in conceptualizing
> reality, my creator is the Essence I have been describing.  There are no
> "hidden assumptions" in the philosophy of Essence.

[Mark]
Yeah, I guess I already knew that.  Are there any particular human
characteristics that you would give your Essence?  Like loving and
giving?
>
Cheers,
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
>