[MD] Intellectual Level

[118]

Hi Ham,

Thank you for the discussion, hope you are well.


On Sun, Jan 2, 2011 at 11:25 PM, Ham Priday <hampday1 at verizon.net> wrote:
>
[Mark before]
>> 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.
>
[Ham]
> 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.

[Mark]
The intellectual paradox arises when we subscribe to a truth.  Let say
we believe that everything falls, but then something rises, this is a
paradox.  A paradox is like saying "everything I say is false".  If we
believe that to be true, then it is false.  If I am speaking
rhetorically, then there is no problem with the statement.  This is
what I mean, a paradox is something that inherently denies the
logicality of premise.  A paradox simply shows that truth cannot be
justified, and must be replace with Quality.  This is why rhetoric is
so much more valuable than truth.  It is not what one says, it is how
they say it.  If it is said with Quality, then it has value.  Now
Absolute Truth, well I don't know about that.  I suppose we could have
Absolute Quality, but that would not make much sense.
>
[SNIPS]

> 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?

[Mark]
What doesn't ring true to me is that we can create value from nothing.
 How does this happen?  How do we separate ourselves from the rest of
the world in that way?  All of this Value is bundled up in everything,
we are just a small part of it.

There is no doubt that we differ in our metaphysical abstraction.  I
do my best to support my contention with analogy and logic, as do you.
 There is more than one good way of looking at things, even if they
contradict each other.  For me, I am part of larger Value, for you,
you create such Value.  There is no doubt that we create any
relational understanding, and to say that something is outside our
sensibility is to say it doesn't exist.  However, what feeds that
creation must be present.  We can't just make these things up out of
nowhere.  We can't fill a hole with holes.  We can't pull ourselves up
by our own bootstraps.

It is still my contention that we cannot be the source of value
(although modern psychologists would disagree with me).  If we could,
such value has to be created somewhere within us out of nothing, and
it is difficult to point to that somewhere.  I have studied the brain,
there is nothing there that can be the value creator, it is just a
bunch of nerves.  If the whole body is the value center, then I can
kind of get your viewpoint.  I would use an analogy of a bell.  Let's
say that there is a group of people that are looking at something
beautiful.  Just for the sake of analogy, let's say it is a painting.
The painting will create different senses of value within each person,
depending on their makeup and history.  Replace the people with bells,
and the painting with a mallet.  Each time the mallet hits a different
bell (person), it will make a different sound.  The ringing is
different between the bells because of their makeup and history.  So
in your perception, we are like bells that ring with value (which must
come from our vibrations) when hit.

The problem with our being the source of value, is similar to the
bells being the sole source of ringing.  It is just not so simple.
What I am saying is that the ringing of the bells is part of a much
larger music.  They can be encompassed by the the variety of things
that make the ringing possible, all of nature.  Value cannot exist in
isolation as a human creation.  We sense value, because it really
exists, just like light exists.

 Do you sense beauty or create it?  I believe the common term is to
sense it.  Is this mistaken?  Quality can be like a wind blowing
through us, and we are mini qualities (mini-me).

This is of course the coin we are tossing. You are heads, I am tails,
but we are both the coin.  You say within, I say without.  So much for
all that.

Cheers,
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
>