[MD] Intellectual Level

[Ham Priday]

Happy 2011 to you, Mark!



> Let me just say, that existence is no paradox, we are in the middle
> of it at this time.  What does become a paradox is when we attempt
> to relate it using logical truths.  This is because, as we understand
> the term, truth is something which is not false.  In metaphysics, to
> show something is not false is difficult.  Each premise must have an
> accepted premise below it.  The beginning premise seems to be that
> we are conscious.  Beneath that, there is not much.

Existence is a paradox when analyzed from a metaphysical perspective of 
reality.  There is no paradox if we accept contrariety and a relational 
world as our natural environment.  As you say, "we are in the middle of it."
Truth for man is relative to difference and numerality, cause and effect, 
from which our logic is derived.  Ultimate Truth and Value coincide in the 
oneness of the Absolute Source.  As agents of value, we can only deal 
differentially with relative values, since finite experience is incremental 
rather than absolute.

[Ham, previously]:
> However, I don't believe the author in his delusional state was the
> recipient of "the darkest secrets of the universe" that he was
> "embarrassed" to explain. I think he simply chose to stop at the "Quality
> experience" and base his metaphysics entirely on that. Had he experienced
> a true epiphany, it is unlikely that he would have settled for an 
> incomplete
> ontology that would remain the subject of endless debate. If I am right,
> the "paradox" Platt and Ian are lamenting is not the limitations of
> Intellect but of the MoQ itself.

[Mark]:
> The author attempted to relate what happened, and what he got out of
> it.  It was a shift in perspective, nothing secret.  His use of Quality as
> opposed to Truth can be seen in the battle between rhetoric and
> dialectic.  This is of course an analogy.  Mythos and logos was
> another.  One cannot encompass mythos with logos.  As Ernst Cassirer
> (and others of course throughout the ages) proposed in the 1800's that
> intellectual thought has its basis in mythological thought.  I do not
> see how it can be otherwise.  First there is the appreciation of values,
> then there is the intellectualization of them.  We cannot create values
> through the intellect, only represent them.

I would say that mythos has its basis in intellectual thought.  However, I 
don't regard a metaphysical theory as as any more "mythological" than a 
scientific theory.  Both are intellectual conceptions.  The only difference 
is that metaphysics is based on intuitive reasoning rather than empirical 
(i.e. experiential) principles.

> Again, there are no contradictions to existence.  Those only arise
> when one tries to represent it symbolically.  The paradox is in the
> intellect, not in reality.  If there were paradoxes in reality, then we
> could not exist.  Reality is consistent, has to be by definition.
> I have to assume that by the value agent, you are pointing to
> consciousness, and the point of view is the body's interaction with
> that outside.  We could quibble on which comes first, existence or
> consciousness, but that can be for another time.

I'll accept your premise, inasmuch as it refers to existential reality only, 
but I'm not sure what the "intellectual paradox" implies.  I don't see 
anything inherently paradoxical about the use of symbols to express the 
relations and dynamics of nature.  We have negative integers in mathematics 
and contradictory propositions in logic to distiguish conflicting situations 
in reality from false conclusions.

[Ham, quoting from 'The Philosophy of Individual Valuism']:
> "For the vast majority of humans, perceptions of value and goodness
> are too often distorted by lenses of culture and mysticism that assert
> what is supposed to be desired with little or no sound reasoning.
> Individual Valuism is the philosophy that individuals are capable of
> judging values by themselves.  Moreover, values can only be defined
> relative to individuals.  Outside of a mind with preferences, goodness
> cannot exist."

[Mark]:
> The paragraph above could mean that both value and goodness exist
> prior to our differentiation of them.  We can only distort something
> that already exists.  If we create such value, there is no distortion
> possible.  Values are something we can judge, but not create. Perhaps
> you read the paragraph differently.  I can see that the author then goes
> on [to] contradict himself, by saying that goodness cannot exist.
> If this is true, then how can we distort it?
>
> Yes, the author points to the subjective nature of value.  This does
> not mean that Value does not exist outside of that.  If this were
> true, we would be creating Value (which I know is what you propose).

No, Mark; the values that we "create" are the "spectrum of Quality" (to use 
your term) fom which we actualize our existence.  Undifferentiated Value, 
like Beauty or Truth, is derived from the Absolute Source (Essence).  If you 
read the entire essay, you'll see that what the author means by "distortion" 
is the rote acceptance of certain values dictated by society, religion, or 
external authority, as in this paragraph, for example, which I didn't quote:

"No matter the reasoning, no matter how many further ends are referenced, 
there can be only two explanations for the value of anything.  One is that 
value exists because one automatically believes that it does. It is 
commanded by some authority that something is of value, so it is.  Society 
believes that something is of value, so it is.  Tradition says that 
something is of value, so it is.  One was brought up to believe that 
something is of value, so it is.  The other explanation is that value exists 
because the state of existence is influenced in a positive way.  In other 
words, something is of value if it causes a desirable outcome.  The first of 
these explanations is based in mindlessness and results in a morality 
determined by chance, whim, and the subjugation of free thought.  The latter 
is based in the ability to understand what is preferable and results in a 
morality focused on what is best to want and how is best to act."

> As with my previous (unanswered) post to you, I would have to ask
> where does this creation of value come from?  We can say that the
> water is cold or warm, this is a value judgement.  However, such a
> judgement is based on something.  What is that something?  I would
> say, that it is the spectrum of Quality.  The same can be said for
> more cerebral values such as beauty.  This does not mean that everyone
> sees the same beauty, since this would make beauty a Truth, which it
> is not.  Thus the view through Quality instead of Truth is what I keep
> trying to impart.

Value is an uncreated attribute of Essence, as I've stated above, Mark.  It 
is WE who divide the spectrum into its differentiated qualities and virtues 
to actualize the relational world.  Value "judgment" is intrinsic to the 
sensibility of the human psyche.  What you are calling Quality and Truth is 
an intellectual division of the Primary Source (Essence) which has neither 
division nor otherness.

> Yes, there is a subjective self.  The difference we have is in
> defining what that subjective self has the power to do.  Can it create
> quality, or can it experience it?  The idea that we can create such a
> thing does not ring true to me.  I would again have to ask, where does
> this creation take place?

The subjective self is proprietary value-sensibility.  It has the power to 
realize Essential Value incrementally and to represent it experientially as 
discrete objects and events (e.g., the "interrelating patterns" Marsha is 
always citing).  Whether you call this "creation", "actualization", 
"reification", or "intellection", it's the process that accounts for the 
universe as we experience it.

Pirsig said that what is not valued does not exist.  My anonymous source 
says that something cannot be valued without a conscious point of view. 
Ergo, what exists is Value differentiated by the conscious subject and 
objectivized experientially into its representative entities.  The ontogeny 
I'm proposing is really that simple.  What doesn't "ring true" to you, Mark?

Essentially yours,
Ham