[MD] Intellectual Level

[Ham Priday]

Hi 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.

You said, before, that "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."  I think the fact that we exist for a 
fleeting moment, then cease to exist, is a paradox.  I think that being able 
to acquire knowledge about everything in the objective world but virtually 
nothing about the subjective self is a paradox.  I think that equating 
reality with the totality of created existence and denying a creator is a 
paradox.  We may call some of these anamolies "mysteries", but the fact that 
we confront them makes exsistence paradoxical.  .

> 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.

We don't create value from nothing.  Value is essential; it is an atttribute 
of Essence (which we are not).  We create entities by dividing value with 
our own nothingness to actualize tbe differentiated world, which is then no 
longer Value but Being.  Did you read my quotes to John from "The Philosophy 
of Individual Valuism"?  This is the best piece I've seen on value.  Here is 
a pertinent excerpt:

"Something cannot be valued without a consciousness.  It makes no sense to 
say that anything is valued objectively because if there is no subject, 
there can be no preference for anything. ...In order for
something to have value, there must be a point of view to perceive it. 
Knowing value requires a mind to think in the same way as knowing beauty 
requires eyes to see."  --[http://www.indval.org/IV.htm]

> 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. ...

"Such value," meaning finite, relational values.  These are what the 
anonymous author is talking about, not Absolute Value which is consciously 
unrealizable.

> 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. ...
>
> The problem with our being the source of value, is similar to the
> bells being the sole source of ringing.

Listen to me, Mark.  We are NOT the source of Value; we are the source of 
its differentiation.  But it is we, the 'actuators', who divide the spectrum 
of essential value into the many and many things that constritute our 
existential reality.  This is what experience does, and our notion of 
reality and its workings are based on that experience.

> 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

Our sensibility to Value is automatic because value-sensibility is the 
essence of our being.  Beauty, like Truth, Virtue, and Morality, are the 
aspects or "colors" of Value that we differentiate and objectivize to paint 
the "patterns' of our experiential reality.  Absolute Value is "out there". 
It is our cosmic link to the essential source, but it is not intrinsic to 
our being.  We can only realize it experientially -- as discreet phenomena 
in time and space.

The source of Value is metaphysical, which is why we experience "things" 
instead of Essence.  Now that you and I agree that we are not the source of 
Value, can we move on to the dynamics of value in a relational world?  You, 
John and others have found fault with my "negational" ontogeny.  (Perhaps it 
is time to try for a meeting of the minds on this, as well.)

Cheers,
Ham