[MD] The Dynamics of Value

[118]

Hi Ham,

On Thu, Feb 24, 2011 at 9:33 PM, Ham Priday <hampday1 at verizon.net> wrote:
>
[Mark previously]>
>> 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.
>
> As I see it, this is the crux of our problem.  I chose Plato's Forms to
> connote "existents" or objects because they are usually identified (i.e.,
> distinguished) by their properties, rather than by their differences.  Value
> and Quality in common parlance are also usually associated with "positive"
> characteristics, even though measured or calibrated by a relative standard.
>
> The world presents itself as a pluralistic system of relational components.
> Yet, you say "there is no need to create such an overarching world."  Where,
> then, do the relational components come from?  Are they implanted in our
> minds, or do they have independent existence?  Is the existing world only
> stratified inorganic and biological substance from which we create the
> actual entities?  Or is the universe that we experience a fully pre-created
> system of multiple objects, just as the physicists desribe it?

[Mark]
I would propose that the objects of relation result from the
relationship.  This is more clear in abstract thought when we
differentiate good from bad.  We can call something good only in
relationship to another thing.  In that way, we are pointing to the
difference, not to the objects themselves.  By reductionist analogy,
this same principle can be used in attributing qualities to a pair of
apples.  We see things as different by means of relationship.  What I
am suggesting is that it is that relationship that guides, and not the
objects themselves.  I call that active process of relationship,
Quality.

So, I do not necessarily need to come up with a dichotomy of which
came first, the objects or their relationship.  I am pointing to a
dynamic relationship that is governed by that which differentiates.
At the same time, I say that such a process of differentiation
(resulting in our awareness of Quality) lies outside of us.  What we
sense is a real and ever present qualification of objects (or thoughts
etc).  We interpret the dynamic aspect of Quality in our human ways,
other than creating it by comparison of things.  The polar objects
that we are relating are a result of being attune to the comparison,
rather than creating the comparison.
>
> My own take on this resembles Plato's 'Universal Forms', except that it's
> the design itself, rather than the finite entities, that is "pre-created".
> The design encompasses what man intellectualizes as the natural and physical
> laws of genetics, energy, mass, and motion.  The potential order of this
> "undifferentiated otherness" affords man a consistent and reliable
> environment in which to cooperatively explore, reason out, and build upon,
> as his value sensibilities drive him.  What he perceives as desirable and
> moral become the objects of his aspiration; what is perceived as deleterious
> or evil is avoided or becomes the objects of contempt.  These motivating
> values are not intrinsic to the universe; they are differentiated by man's
> proprietary sensibility.
>
[Mark]
I will have to think of Design in this context.  I would agree if such
design is an active process rather than just a blue-print.  Again, I
would have to say that man perceives the difference between things
rather than the things themselves to acknowledge quality.  I would
agree that we as humans have a hard-wired method for perception.  I am
simply providing perspective for dismissing the objects themselves as
valuable, and focusing on their active differentiation.
>
> [Mark previously]
>>
>> 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.
>
[Ham]
> Good point, Mark.  This primary will is the "psychic desire" of the
> conscious agent to acquire  the Value it senses.  Value is essentially
> "affinity" or attraction; so the desire is inherent to value-sensibility
> itself and does not become "intentional" (controlled) until value is
> differentiated, making choice possible.  It is most important to recognize
> that WE are the "controllers" here.  It is OUR value preferences and our
> choices that actualize our reality.  Any "external" control over this
> process would undermine the power of a free agent.
>
[Mark]
For lack of a better word, I call psychic desire "Intent"


[Ham]>
> The brain is an objectivized entity, just as a rock or a tree is.  As the
> vehicle of your awareness, you might consider it an "intimate component" of
> your environment.  Although we tend to think of the brain as exclusively a
> receiver of inputs (i.e, "affective"), it is my theory that the brain is
> also an "effective" organ; that is, it is instrumental in projecting
> differentiated value "outward" into the world of appearances.  This is how
> finite entities (discrete things) are actualized as constituents of our
> objective otherness.  And "attitude"--how we "feel" about something--is
> indeed fundamental to value-sensibility.
>
[Mark]
I would agree with you, our brains are part of the environment and
play their part in the unfolding of reality.

[Ham]
> Moreover, the fact that the individuated agent is a "negate" of Essence from
> the start suggests to me that this projection is, in part at least, a
> "secondary" negation.  I happen to believe that all creation is negation.
> Remember, the value we project into otherness is differentiated, which means
> that the objective world we experience is fragmented or divided to represent
> this difference.  What I'm really proposing, in a roundabout way, is the
> Sartrean view that "we penetrate Being with our own nothingness", thereby
> dividing experiential reality into the "many and many things' that comprise
> our relational existence.
>
> Are you listening, Mark?
>
[Mark]
Yes, I am listening and interpreting.  As you know, I do not favor the
term negation.  This is most probably because I have not read and
understood books dealing with this as you have (primarily Hedeger and
Sarte).  I am not quite sure what we are negating and why we need to
bring that into an ontology. I do understand that we are conscious
now, and do not remember having been so before, so there may be
something to this other side.  In the end it is the analogy which
provides most meaning, and mine is always growing and changing.

Penetrating Being with our own nothingness brings to mind a diagram of
two circles, one blue and one yellow.  These circles intersect and
share part of their insides resulting in a green color.  So if both of
these are denoted as nothingness, and Green is called being, I think I
get the picture.  I suppose it is the terminology which I find
confusing.

Being kind of a scientist, I also look for a meaningful explanation as
to how this negation comes into being.  Of course I could ask the same
question of Quality, which I have decided to forgo.  So, I have some
selectivity in my own questioning.


[Ham]
>
> Perhaps we are making some progress.  With your encouragement and
> understanding, I'm beginning to see light at the end of the tunnel.  At
> least, I'm seeing things more clearly.  What about you, Mark?

[Mark]
I certainly find this conversation challenging and instructional.  So,
if nothing else, it is helping me out with my own thoughts.

Thanks,
Mark
>
 > Mo q_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
>