[MD] The Dynamics of Value

[118]

Aloha Ham,

On Sat, Feb 26, 2011 at 10:57 AM, Ham Priday <hampday1 at verizon.net> wrote:
> Hey, Mark --

>
> 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?
>
[Mark]
I am using the term difference to impart that which defines.  Quality
exists, and from it we can appreciate differences through their
perceived qualities.  I have tried to use a variety of analogies from
apples to the stock market.  I am not sure how else to proceed, so I
will drop the term difference.  Qualities are not inherent in things
themselves, they arise through that which differentiates one thing
from another.  This differentiation is an active process and thus
creates.


> 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?

[Mark]
Things are defined or created by Quality.  They are the polar ends of
a quality, such as a good apple and a bad apple.  Value is our human
way of describing that which we sense.  We sense something that is
real, not something we create, we sense Quality.  We have no ability
of creating such a thing.  I have used neurochemistry to try to
explain this.  Yes, we value or appreciate something.  What we are
doing is sensing Quality.  This would be like sensing the wind that
blows.
>

>
[Ham]
> 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'.
>
[Mark]
If I read your paragraph above, it would appear that we have a
sensibility to Value.  This would imply that Value exists outside of
us, and we are able to sense it.  We are attuned to such a thing, and
endeavor to be in harmony with it.  I will agree that our personal
interpretation of such value can differ from one person to another.
One person may think the water is hot, another cold.  This still does
not dismiss the fact that the water has some quality.  I would term
your "actualization" as my "interpretation".  We cannot actualize
something out of nothing.

Let me digress for a second to provide a result of viewing Quality as
a primary creator.  Since this is MoQ, my example is one relevant to
the forum.  In ZMM, there is discussion concerning motorcycle
maintenance as an art.  There is also a depiction of so called
Romantic and Classical thinking.  The thrust is to separate the two in
terms of the intellectual effort required in each form of awareness.
That is, the effort of the frontal cortex: analysis based on words and
concepts is classical.  Now, romantic thinking can be considered to be
more emotional or instinctual, such as the playing or listening to
music.  Classical thinking is involved in repairing motorcycles or
reading instruction manuals.  The split is artificial and somehow
relegates the activity of the thinking mind to some different kind of
event.  The Zen approach is to become fully involved in the activity,
whatever it is.  In such a state, the doer and the doing become
intertwined so that a separation cannot be felt.  That is, the
mechanic becomes the repairing of the motorcycle, or the motorcycle
itself.  In order to achieve this, intellectually, the mechanic must
look between the objects and become part of a process.  This would be
equivalent to looking at the task as one in which Quality is being
followed rather than bits and pieces.  Therefore, to view what is
actively involved in such a task rather than the objects themselves,
becomes one of entering into the world of Quality.  Now, we do this
anyway, and there is no way around it.  The point is to appreciate
that this is what we are doing.  By making Quality the actual reality
of what is happening, it is possible to treat it as a real entity.

OK, enough of that digression.

[Ham]
> 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]
We speak of the unfolding of reality.  This is an active process.  It
does certainly follow certain patterns which we subscribe to rules.
That is, we have some expectations of what will happen (although we
are often wrong).  So, such unfolding is active, perhaps in a
predictable way, perhaps not.  The design is constantly being defined
as it changes.  Such cosmic design is affected by free will, therefore
it is active.  Since we are part and parcel of the cosmos, and we feel
we have choice, the cosmic design cannot be immutable, but must be
subject to our interference.  A concept of immutability leads to
determinism.  Now, one could argue that the design is every
possibility that could ever be, and in that sense it would logically
already be there, immutable.  However such a statement does not have
meaning.


> [Mark previously]:
>>
>> 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.
>
[Ham
> 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.

[Mark]
Well, that is probably where I got the idea from.
>

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

[Mark]
I also find the word Will to be adequate.  If the sense of Quality is
one of attraction to another thing, then I have no problem with your
statement.  If the source is that which we are not, then I don't
understand you.
>

[Ham].
>
> 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]
I did read some Hedeger, as a result of your posts.  I did not like
the way he would suddenly come up with a new term, as if that
explained everything.  As far as I could see, he got stuck and needed
to suddenly leap.  But, I have a simple brain.
>
[Ham]
> 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 ;-).

Yes, to resolve your first issue above may take a little on my part.
I have kind of dug a deep path here, and it will take some doing on my
part.  I do believe that our appreciation of Value is somewhat
similar.  I agree with much of what you post, and am simply providing
another perspective.  That is, objects are not nearly as important as
what qualifies them.  Such a process of qualification is what we are
in tune with.

I do have an essential source, I call it Quality.  We are part of the
essential source.  We are the big bang, or the God of creation, just a
small part of it.  There is no need for separation in these things.
But, I am capable of believing many things, and perhaps what you
propose is a good way to view things.  I am trying.

Aloha,
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
>