[MD] The Dynamics of Value

[Ham Priday]

Hey, Mark --


On Fri, Feb 25, 2011 at 4:32 PM, Mark <ununoctiums at gmail.com> wrote:

> 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.

No, but you do need to account for the objects themselves.  Difference alone 
doesn't hack it.
How can relationships be a "result" of what does not yet exist?  Isn't that 
putting the cart before the horse, epistemologically speaking?

If, as you say, things are not quality, then what ARE they?  And of what use 
is "quality" if it only serves to differentiate?  This again demonstrates 
why Value is preferable to Quality as an operative (active) term.  Value is 
a verb.  Like Quality, it is comparative in that we value some things more 
than others.  But what is valued is desired or appreciated by the subject. 
Can the same be said for quality -- especially for a quality that only 
separates things?

> 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.

The comparison is "created" by intellection or qualitative analysis.  The 
objects are created by value sensibility.  Sensibity differentiates 
essential Value so that it is attuned to, or aligned with,
specific principles of the cosmic "other" -- attraction, repulsion, force, 
inertia, relativity, balance, symmetry, concentricity, etc.  Depending on 
the valuistic orientation or "attitude" of the subject, experience then 
converts that value to an 'essent' -- a finite being that represents his/her 
particular value configuration.  This is what I call 'actualization'.

[Ham]:
> [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.

I don't understand your stipulation that a design must be "active".  The 
"activity" of existence is the process of experiencing it, and this what the 
cognizant subject does.  The cosmic design itself is uncreated, holistic, 
and immutable.  What we intellectualize as laws and principles is a causal 
paradigm based on our space/time perspective.  The primary characteristic of 
experiential existence is polarity: e.g., being/nothingness, mind/matter, 
subject/object, before/after, birth/death, large/small, strong/weak, 
good/bad, and so on.  All action embodies this polarity; it is the very mode 
of man's objective awareness.  As a consequence of his "being nothing", 
nothingness penetrates the otherness of his experiential reality, dividing 
it into the 'many and many things' that represent his value orientation at a 
given time.  THAT is your "active process", Mark, not the pre-designed 
cosmic blueprint.

[Mark]:
> 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.

Fine, as long as the analogy makes the concept more comprehensible.  You may 
have seen the animated circle diagram I created for my online thesis.  It 
begins with Absolute Essence (in purple), introduces "nothing" as a black 
addition (which transitions to "not-other"), and concludes with a series of 
"Beings" forming concentrically around a central "not" to depict existential 
reality.  Later on I offer another animation showing Subject (self) and 
Object (other) as a pair of circles emerging from Essence which are then 
drawn together and enveloped in the Essential Value from whence they came.

> 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.

Duly noted and appreciated, Mark.

[Ham]:
> [P]rimary will is the "psychic desire" of the conscious agent to
> acquire the Value it senses. Value is essentially an "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.

[Mark]:
> For lack of a better word, I call psychic desire "Intent".

Then, let me revise the above definition and say simply that "Primary Will" 
is the implicit
attraction of the individuated psyche for its estranged source.

[Ham]:
> 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.

[Mark]:
> 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 Heidegger and Sartre).  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.

Unlike some others that we seem to be attracting here, I'm not one to make 
off-the-cuff book recommendations.  If I were, I would probably discourage 
reading Sartre or Heidegger, as they are both obtuse and a struggle to 
follow in English translation.  That said, they do offer some intriguing 
concepts which I've found useful in articulating my own philosophy.  (As you 
can see, I like to think of myself as the "official authority" on 
Essentialism, although some apparently think Royce does it better.)

Mark, if we can resolve the issue of what an existent "fundamentally is", 
apart from its comparable quality, I believe we can reach some accord re: 
the Dynamics of Value.  Of course, there is still the matter of an essential 
source, which you seem to feel is unnecessary.  If nothing else, I'm 
determined to change that view before I've had done with you ;-).

Essentially encouraged,
Ham