[MD] The Dynamics of Value

[118]

Hi Ham,

Thanks for the feedback.

On Wed, Feb 23, 2011 at 10:49 PM, Ham Priday <hampday1 at verizon.net> wrote:
> You're making me work overtime to resolve our deadlock, Mark.  But since the
> nature of Quality (Value) seems to be what's at issue here, I'll take your
> cue and analyze "the coin itself" in language that (hopefully) we can both
> relate to.  After all, we are discussing the Dynamics of Value in an attempt
> to determine how Value (Quality) creates or actualizes differentiated
> existents.
>
[Mark Previously]
[SNIP]
For one to value Grade A
>> eggs more than Grade B, there must be something inherently providing
>> the observer with a difference between both types.  What is that thing
>> that separates the quality of eggs thus defining them relationally?
>> Let's call it Quality.
>
[Ham]
> Let's not.  Let's call it "difference".  Whatever separates entities--by
> time, space, or attribute--is the experiential differentiator.  The entity
> itself, in Plato's lingo, is a "Form".  I'm abstracting here from
> Wikipedia's write-up on Plato's theory of Forms:
>
> "Form answers the question 'what is that?'  Plato supposed that the object
> was essentially the Form and that phenomena were mere shadows mimicking the
> Form under different circumstances.  The problem of universals was solved by
> presuming that Form was a distinct singular thing but caused plural
> representations of itself in particular objects.  Matter was considered
> particular in itself.  Forms are the essences of various objects: they are
> that without which a thing would not be the kind of thing it is."
>
> But, with apologies to Plato, Form (or shape) is only one aspect of an
> objective thing.  Things have sensible attributes, for example, such as
> texture, color, smell, taste, or sound.  There are the quantitative
> (measurable) characteristics of size, weight, density, material composition,
> fragility, and temperature.  There are also functional properties that
> determine the thing's use or purpose--by itself or in combination with other
> objects. Now, which of these criteria or attributes, do you think, describes
> the "essence" of a thing?  All or none?  Or would you say that a thing's
> essence or Quality is determined "comparatively", that is, by its relative
> value compared with other things?

[Mark]
I also have to apologize to Plato, since what he is proposing does not
necessarily provide much awareness to me.  Yes, Form is one way of
viewing the world, and we derive specifics of the form through our
powers of differentiation.  But there is no need to create such an
overarching world.  In answer to your question, I would say that
Quality is discerned through our brain's (and body)  interaction with
the world.  We tend to focus on the objects themselves instead of what
differentiates them.  We speak of relativeness, and say that we create
such a thing.  What we may create is our response to the
differentiation, but do not create the actual differentiation itself.
Such a process of differentiation is an active process, and not a
result of the objects themselves.  In this sense, Quality creates the
differences.


[Ham]
> My personal view is that, while Being may be considered "the essence of
> existence", things (existents) don't have "essences", they have "qualities".
> And what distinguishes a particular thing from undifferentiated otherness is
> neither quantitative nor functional data, but our cognizance of its sensible
> qualities.  All the other descriptors are intellectualized or intuited from
> our sensory perception of the object in question.  This is epistemically
> logical, since all experience is derived from our five senses.  Where then,
> you ask, does Value come into the picture?
>
[Mark]
I view things in the same way, except that they do not contain
qualities in themselves, but are a result of qualities.  This is
perhaps a difference.  For I am proposing a unifying underlying
concept for things.  This was the reason I brought in the Higgs field
analogy a while back.  I am suggesting a single concept which builds
out the rest.  Otherwise, I agree with your comment on descriptors.
Such descriptors are a representation of something more fundamental.

[Ham]
> You'll note that I included the phrase "from undifferentiated otherness" in
> the above analysis.  I anticipate that you will equate that otherness with
> Quality (DQ),  And you will argue that everything else in this scheme,
> including the observing subject, is a "pattern" of that Quality.  Right?
> Well, indulge me for a moment while I try to convince you that this is
> not--cannot be--the end of the story.
>
[Mark]
By my understanding of what you term undifferentiated otherness, I
would not call it Quality.  My sense of Quality is more as an active
force, if you will.  Some kind of flux or something.  Undifferentiated
otherness seems more like a "potential for being".  Somehow we extract
from that what we sense.  I do not have much preference for the use of
pattern, and do not quite understand what others are proposing in this
context.

[Ham]
> You previously alluded to the "attention factor" necessary for a "certain
> thought to present itself" to a conscious subject.  I was uncomfortable with
> the way you decribed it, but couldn't quite figure why.
>
> [John previously]:

[Mark]
Actually that was me, but I may have been writing under my pseudonym
of John at the time... :-)
>>
>> So, what causes a nerve or pattern of nerves to fire?  I would have
>> to say that it is the distinction between things, not the things
>> themselves.
>> We cannot willfully demand that a certain thought present itself.
>> It is this active separation which I term Quality.  It is not some
>> supernatural force, but it is the basis for our consciousness.
>
> When I stopped focusing on the "difference/distinction" thrust of this
> assertion, I realized the problem.  We DO "willfully demand that a certain
> thought present itself."  That is precisely what experience is and does.  It
> converts the sensible Value we feel for otherness to the appearance of a
> thing or things that represent our particular thought at the time.  In other
> words, we "will" that a certain thought present itself as the being of a
> thing.  In that way we use our experience incrementally to actualize
> physical existents from the Value of otherness.  This, I submit--as well as
> "the distinction between things"--is the basis of conscious awareness.

[Mark]
All I can say, is that if I dig down deep and try to determine if and
how I am controlling my thoughts, I do not find a controller.  Perhaps
such "will" cannot be discerned by my brain, and is off limits to
logical investigation.  When a sudden though arises, I don't think
that "I" can take credit for it.  After it does arise, I can act by
way of choice.  This is what I term attitude.  I feel that the brain
and the environment act in a more-or-less programmed way.  Things come
in, and the brain reacts a certain way.  It is through judgement of
the way that the brain is reacting that we have some control.  I like
some thoughts, I ignore others.  I think that negative obsessions are
a result of not being aware of that power.  But I am diverging from
the dynamics of value here.  Although, in a general way, it is this
concept of the brain being somewhat external to the subjective "I",
that my current awareness is derived.
>
> Let me also add that "Negation" does for distinction what "Value" does for
> our affirmation of appearance.
>
> I don't know if all this constitutes a valid counter-argument to your
> epistemology, but would be interested in getting your reaction to it
> ...especially if you think it has any chance of breaking through the
> impasse.  In any case, it has been a helpful exercise for me.
>
[Mark]
Thanks Ham, in helping to define the coin.  I do indeed have visions
of what you are stating, but get stuck when I take my understanding of
your ontology into certain directions.  I do not have the same
understanding of our degree of control in this existence.  We are both
providing concepts and rhetoric for the conveyance of awareness in
terms of explanation.  As such, your use of negation and value,
provides a foundation for building.  In the same way, I use the term
Quality.  All of these terms have some kind of mutually accepted
definitions, which allow us to converse.  In many ways, I see your use
of negation as being equivalent to "creation", but I do see some
distinctions.  I believe we both agree that we cannot create, but only
uncover.  The mechanism for that uncovering and what is derived from
it is where we still to not meet.

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
>