[MD] The Dynamics of Value

[John Carl]

Briefly as possible, Ham:


'The way of all flesh' seems a very shallow ideology for a philosopher to
> pin his hopes on, John.  Your "the universe = the whole enchilada" concept
> of reality leaves a lot to be desired, despite your rejection of Socrates'
> idea that the object (Value) of man's desire is what he is not.



"the universe = the whole enchilada" concept of reality is just three
different ways of labeling the same thing - the cosmos, what we experience
as reality.  My point is that what we experience as reality is
Man+birds+stars+water+etc.  Not everything except man, as if man was
something different than the cosmos.


Ham:


> You see, I would reverse your premise and say that "the point of having
> Freedom is the capacity for spiritual fulfillment."


John:

Freedom is spiritual fulfillment and vice-versa.   There are forms of
shallow freedom (hedonism for instance) which clash with spiritual
fulfillment, but otherwise, I agree completely.

 Ham:

And I would never characterize Freedom as "the correct way to have an
> entanglement" or any other relationship.  Nothing impedes Freedom so much as
> the notion of "correctness"--what we 'ought' to do.


John:

 I disagree completely.  Nothing fosters freedom so much as giving real
meaning to choice.  Choosing between nearly inconsequential outcomes is
meaningless.  Flip a coin, who cares?  The metaphysics of randomness will
serve you as well as any other.  But when there is real consequence.  When
good and evil are the choice, then choice has teeth.  Then freedom becomes
truly significant.  I say, nothing impedes Freedom so much as the notion of
values-relativism where nothing really matters.  Having "oughts" is what
makes doing the opposite a truly meaningful choice.

Ham:


> This is the problem I see with social or state-imposed morality; it's the
> collective herd telling the individual what's good for him.  Such hubris has
> planted the seeds of statism and tyranny throughout the history of mankind.
>  Why, for goodness sake, do you scoff at the idea of "supposed individuals"
> being the source of realized Value?  Can you suggest any other sensible
> source, or do you think Value grows on trees?
>
>
>
John:

The problem I see with state-imposed morality is that it orders individuals
to do what is good for the state.  In such a state of affairs, the
individual is cast into eternal war and opposition, just for his own being.
The proper focus of state-imposed values, as I've mentioned before, is the
nurturing and prospering of true individuality.  Just as an enlightened man
cares for all his organs, in all their diversity, so too does the
enlightened state care for all her individual citizen in their diversity.

And yeah, I do sorta think value grows on trees.  Trees are very good.  I
used to have a saying when I was doing mostly woodworking - I'd say to my
guys under me, "hey, don't waste wood.  Wood doesn't grow on trees, ya
know."

Of course wood grows on trees.  But the value added is the expense of
harvesting the tree and slicing it up into usable chunks.  Man, I'm gonna
miss going up into the forest and getting what I need directly.

So Value is something which is created by our interaction with the trees.
But if I had to put it coming from anyplace in particular - I'd point at a
tree.  After all, from my view, the tree is part of me anyway! (my lung
system and all) So I guess I'd be happy to say, "value grows on trees".

Ham:



> I wonder if your employment in the construction trade is union-affiliated.
> If so, doesn't this restrict your independence and enjoyment of freedom?
>
>
John:

The construction union seems to be a thing only in the cities and big public
works projects whereas I've spent most of my working life in the hills and
small towns "above it all."

 My dad would probably disown me if I joined a union.  :-)

But there are lots of things which restrict my independence and yet I'm
still free to act or think in ways that can reduce my dependencies.  I can
adjust my attitude toward the restrictions I face and that's the key point
to freedom, I believe.   To choose orientation toward freedom.

Ham:


> I, too, believe free choice is fundamental.  It's what separates us from
> the animal kingdom and makes us rational creatures.  The "absolute
> sensibility of Essence" is something we don't possess as human beings, hence
> we desire (value) for ourselves.  That's why value is the center of our
> being.
>
>
John:
 There's a vast difference between the attitudes and demeanors of a caged
coyote and a free-running one.  The animal which strives so forcefully to be
free, must have a concept of the thing which it pursues endlessly, so with
such strong evidence by animals which will chew their own legs off, rather
than remain trapped, how can you say they evince no concept of freedom?

Ham:


>   The Pirsigians do not regard Quality as either primary or absolute.
>  Instead, they describe it as something that "moves to betterness" and,
> because they associate this with an evolving universe, they falsely equate
> Quality with a "universal principle".
> This makes man a robot of universal Quality, effectively robbing him of his
> innate freedom.  Does that answer your question, John?
>
>
John:

Perhaps I'm discovering more and more as time goes by that I'm more of a
Roycean than a Pirsigian, Ham.  And thus, I have no problem with Quality as
an Absolute.


John Prev.


>
>  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?
>>
>
>
Ham:


> Being, as we experience it, is finite, relational and transitory.  It is
> how we identify the objects of our existence (For example: this being is a
> ball; that being is a rock; my being is a human individual.)   Essence is
> the potentiality to actualize a sensible "agent".


John:

I'm sorry, but I don't understand that formulation in the slightest.
Potentiality is the vaguest term I can imagine being offered. Talk about
"ghosts"!  I'd think agency always implies sensibility, so that's a
redundancy and all in all, it just doesn't scan for anything I can imagine.

And unfortunately, the rest doesn't clarify much for me.  Even after all
this time.


>  Existence takes the form of Sensibility/Otherness.  This dichotomy formed
> by the negation (or exclusion) of finite Sensibility becomes the agent,
> leaving the 'motherlode' to represent the agent's otherness, or the
> appearance we call existence. Absolute Essence is uncreated and not subject
> to the conditions of beingness, such as time, space, and change or
> evolution.  Inasmuch as negation is the differentiator of existence (from
> Essence), Value can be understood as the unifying principle that draws
> sensibility back to its absolute source.
>
>
John:

Take away beingness, (time, space and change) and all you've got is
nothingness.  The metaphysics of nothingness makes even less sense to me
than the metaphysics of randomness.  In "essence" they seem remarkably
similar.

Sorry Ham.  I don't want to sound derogatory, I like you.  But your whole
system just reeks of confusion to me.

As I said earlier:

>
> [John]:
>
>> "divided by nothingness" is just as meaningless as "divided by zero",
>> Ham. You're just spinning circles around yourself with these terms,
>> and they don't go anywhere anyway - "what is nothingness?"
>> "Ummm... it's the opposite of somethingness."
>> "What is somethingness?"
>>
>> "Ah, well, you know... it's the opposite of nothingness".
>
>
Ham:


> Okay, John.  Have your fun at my expense.  Metaphysical concepts are not
> easily articulated, since society hasn't given us the language to describe
> them.  Suffice it to say that the time/space appearance of energy and mass
> -- "otherness in process"  -- is how we perceive existence (crop circles
> notwithstanding.)
>
>
John:

I don't mean to be rude, Ham.  I do appreciate you.   But I hope you catch
the essential thrust of my point - unless your metaphysical formulations can
be understood - interpreted by others, they're just as useless as spinning
patterns in the grasses which are here today and gone tomorrow.  Fancy
patterns which connect with nothing, and go nowhere.   Don't you wish for
more effects from your efforts?

Ham:

Again, John, things don't come into being by themselves.  The mind behind
> existence is ours, the potential that creates it is Essence, and the design
> to which the cosmos is fine-tuned is our sense of Value actualized by
> experience.
>
>

John:

Well that just plain contradicts itself.  If the mind behind existence is
ours, and existence is ours, then obviously we must have come into being by
ourselves.  You've got the snake swallowing it's tail.

Ham:

Spoken like a true nihilist, John.  You're looking at the "pragmatic whole";
> I search for the "essential whole".  There's all the difference in the world
> between these two approaches.  Yet we're still conversing.  Which makes me
> wonder...why do I bother?
>
>

John:

I suppose we both bother until we realize that there is no further point.
And I agree that we do seem to be converging there.  Your view seems
nihilist to me, mine seems that way to you.

Ham:

It must be the verdict at the end of the road that keeps me going.  (Bet'cha
> I get there before you do.)
>
>

The purpose of a finite game is to win, the purpose of an infinite one is to
keep on playing.  Here's hoping you discover lots of playing time left in
you Ham.  (hint- in order to extend the game, one must extend one's
boundaries)

Yours,

John