[MD] The Dynamics of Value

[Ham Priday]

Hey, John --

[John on new subject theme]:
> By all means, my friend.  Age before beauty. :-)
>
> Besides, I got to express my feelings about "gastro-
> intestinal effects" with Marsha in a way that satisfied
> my appetite.

[John previously]:
>> This is how social morality evolves.  Not out of
>> man's head, but from the well-springs of man's being -
>> his relationship with his natural environment.  The only
>> possible source of consensus is this "common environment".

Unless what you mean by "natural environment" is human society--"the social 
milieu"--I can't relate Quality or Value to Nature.  The laws and principles 
of Nature are the teleological order of the cosmos; the code of moral 
behavior is a majority consensus of individual values shared in common.

> It is really quite simple, Ham.  Society's congruence with the
> common environment is the lingua franca of our very being.
> It is from whence all our conceptualizations arise.  We think
> in terms of the things we perceive. This used to be more
> widely understood, but with the advent of the technological
> environment in which we now dwell,  media has warped our
> perceptions of Nature and this deep truth  is slowly being
> forgotten or overlooked or cast aside as irrelevant.  Some
> philosophers I appreciate blame the basic estrangement as
> starting with Descartes.  And I agree.  He should have known
> that we think about what we perceive, and that is how we
> come to the conclusion that we are.

We perceive 'individually' what we think about 'individually'.  "Collective 
thought" is a misnomer.  Ayn Rand made this clear when she said: "No man can 
think for another."  Intellection/conceptualization is a proprietary 
function of the conscious self.  When we attempt to communicate our concepts 
in words, we take the first step towards collectivizing thought.  That's why 
two people who disagree about a fundamental principle cannot resolve their 
differences verbally.  Language is universal; concepts are not.

[Ham on Jeffers' prose]:
> [T]his expresses the principle of Essential Value from which
> man is estranged at birth.  As a finite being whose experience
> is based on a handful of sensory inputs, man only knows value
> (essent-value) relationally, in terms of finite beingness.

[John]:
> "Estranged" you say.  And yet what is so strange about birth?
> Viewing birth as an estrangement seems so foreign to my
> philosophy that I hardly know how to even begin to address
> this with you.  The peace of the womb is the peace of
> nothingness, of unrealized being.  Its really no different than
> death, when you think about it.  You say man "only" knows
> value relationally, and yet I say your pejorative "only" is
> completely out of place.  My God man!  This "knowing value
> relationally in finite beingness" is "only" everything!
> What more could a man want than that?

Metaphysics not not about what man "wants" but about what man "is".  If we 
are content to simply relate ourselves to the finite things and events 
passing before us, how can we hope to get beyond this otherness and discover 
the "essence" of Reality?

> Well I can see how you get accused of SOMism tendencies,
> then, since you seem to take this as fundamental.  "You" view it
> thusly.  Let me show you a different way of viewing.  Do you
> live and breathe Ham?  By what means do you draw breath?
> Your lungs, right?  These are the apparatus by which you
> breathe, but what about the trees that make the oxygen that
> you take into your lungs?  With them, your lungs wouldn't
> function at all.  Therefore, could it not be viewed differently,
> that trees are actually part of your breathing apparatus?
> That trees are an extension of your lungs?  The advantage of
> viewing it this way, is that by extension you begin to understand
> that your subject is much bigger and more interconnected with
> your object than you realize at first glance.  You obviously value
> your self, so how big is your self?  Wouldn't it be preferable
> to expand your self?  Try a different view, is my suggestion.

But Essentialism IS a different view, John.  I am not now, and never will 
be, a tree.  I understand that the exchange of gases in plant photosynthesis 
provides the oxygen we need to breathe.  As a human being I am dependent on 
the being of nature and all the biological processes this implies.  As a 
thinking self, however, I embody another kind of reality.  So the question 
comes down to this: Do I feed my stomach while allowing my soul to starve? 
I'd like to make this limited lifespan account for something more than a 
mere pass through existence.

As a young pre-med major, I was fortunate to have been introduced to the 
essentials of cellular biology, anatomy, physiology and embryology, as well 
as physics and chemistry.  But it was philosophy that put these diverse 
scientific studies into a unitary perspective for me.  I started reading 
Schopenhauer, Sartre, Chardin, Jaspers, Jung, and Watts, and realized that 
there was more to life than factual knowledge, that what really drives 
mankind is the desire for what he is not.  This principle evetually led to a 
valuistic ontology for which I sought the insight of wiser thinkers.  Not 
everything I read was inspirational, but occasionally I would stumble on a 
gem of wisdom that filled some gap my thesis, and by this slow, selective 
process I arrived at a philosophy that was meaningful for me.

[Previously]:
> I assure you that Nature is NOT the Absolute Source.
> So far as we know it is not even "absolute".  This is plain
> Existentialism--the theory that Being precedes Essence
> which is the "final outcome" of its evolution.

[John]:
> You assure me, based upon what logical grounds?  Have you
> ascended unto the most high?  Have you transcended the
> fountains of life and encompassed all in your view and see
> how things really are?

In an intellectual way I have.  I too found 'Being and Nothingness' 
fascinating.  But when I explored the theories that had led to existentalism 
and learned that Nietzsche was really not an atheist, I saw that man's 
highest aspiration is not power, wealth or notoriety, but spiritual 
fulfillment, and this is not attainable short of a religious or mystical 
conversion that robs man of his freedom.  An individual who is not free is a 
slave to someone else's dogma or authority; and that is immoral because it 
deprives him of realizing his own values.  Some regard this state of affairs 
as "paradoxical"'.  I view it as the transition of value from realization by 
an 'other' to the absolute sensibility of Essence.

James Fletcher Baxter defined the 'Human Paradigm' thusly: "The intellect 
can rise no higher than the criteria by which it perceives and measures 
values."  I think there is much truth in this precept.

> I've copped to existentialism in the past.  Not because I've
> studied it extensively, but just because what I've encountered
> appeals to me.  Your assertion that I am one, I'll certainly buy.
> But please, just tell me, what is the essential difference between
> essence and being?  If essence has no being, then why even
> get all worked up about it?  Or do you think it's a matter of
> which comes first, and that's your main point?

It's not a matter of which comes first; it's the issue of metaphysical 
primacy.  Being is finitude divided by nothingness -- the time/space 
appearance of energy and mass as otherness in process.  Essence is the 
ultimate and unconditional source from which all otherness is negated.

> But how do you escape much the same conundrum with
> "universal template'?  That sounds like a pretty much a priori
> conceptualization the way you present it.

Perhaps I presented it poorly.  What I meant to say was that the coherency 
of physical reality (the universal template) reflects the intelligence of a 
"designer"   (Essence).  I wanted to distinguish the laws and principles by 
which the universe evolves from the qualitative aspects of things and events 
which we actualize experientially from Value.

> But we build meaning in a linear fashion, and we can intuit where our
> direction is leading.  I'm content with an infinite process, as long as I
> see I'm going in the right direction.

Anything that takes place in time is a linear process, and comprehending 
meaning may take a lifetime.  I'm not sure about intuition, though. 
Sometimes it can create a concept in a single flash of insight.

Anyway, I'm glad your intuitive vision is good enough to know that you are 
going in the right direction.

Have a safe trip, John,
Ham