[MD] Intellectual Level

[118]

Hi Ham,

On Tue, Jan 4, 2011 at 1:43 PM, Ham Priday <hampday1 at verizon.net> wrote:

> 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.

[Mark]
There are a number of ways that I could encapsulate what you are
stating.  Without getting into a definition of paradox, I will point
to the observation that what you term a paradox is so because of the
intellect's succumbing to truth.  Let's just take your paradox of the
fleeting life.  First of all, you have to perceive that life is
fleeting.  Personally you have no such knowledge, and therefore
extrapolate from the death of others.  Secondly, you assume that life
does not exist outside of this temporary incarnation, and must cease
to exist.  Thirdly, you postulate that life must be everlasting for a
paradox not to exist.  The theory of evolution suggests that a short
life is necessary due to the constant fluctuation of the environment.
This requires life to constantly turn-over to remain viable, so there
is no paradox if we subscribe to such a theory.  The Hindu and
Buddhist realities postulate that there is successive reincarnations,
and rebirth is one of correcting karma, the the need for death.  The
Christian philosophy states that we are on trial for some everlasting
existence.

My point is, that what you state is a paradox may be due to a
philosophy of life.  That is an intellectual stance.  If we have the
power to create value, then why would some create a meaningless
existence.  If we create quality, then surely the Buddhist or
Christian view has higher value.  How much power do we have over our
value creation?  Or is it created for us?
>
[Ham]
>
> 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]

[Mark]
Yes, I read the quotes.  We could get into what consciousness is and
go off on a tangent, but we all know what it is without definition.
If the author states that we know beauty by seeing it, does that imply
that beauty already exists, and that we come to know it?  Or does it
mean that we create it with our eyes?  If we have a point of view,
where does that come from?  What this author states does not
contradict there being a value that we perceive rather than create.
>
>> 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.

[Mark]
Value, Quality, what is the difference to you?  The quality we
perceive is realizable, just in our own way.  A tree or a rock also
perceives value, a group of nerves in a skull has not special
properties.
>
>
> 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.

[Mark]
Yes, I agree, we perceive Quality in a way peculiar to humans.
Experience exists in the memory, and I agree that such memory is
selective, has to be since we are very simple mechanisms compared to
what is out there.  We have limited vision, auditory capacity, sensory
capability, so, what we perceive is through the five (or six or
seven...) senses.  If we are avatars, then that is our limit.  We can
be a prism which percieves wavelengths, but the original light with
all its wavelengths is not created by us, all those colors exist
before we see them.  I agree with you, you agree with me.
>

> 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.

[Mark]
OK, so we are created as value creators, and have no control over
that.  I don't know.  Like Tim, I do not see the need for an Absolute
Essence which we cannot perceive.  I say we perceive it every moment.
In fact, we are part of it, not separate.
>
> 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.)
>

[Mark]
Yes, I have no problem moving on to the dynamic aspects of value.  I
don't think that agreement on origin is necessary to discuss that
amicably.  I fall back on my analogy of us being a conduit of value by
connecting absolute essence back to itself.  I can't remember if you
liked that analogy or not.

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
>