[MD] The Dynamics of Value

[Ham Priday]

Okay, Mark --

Thanks for reflecting on my comments to your analysis of Value.  Before I 
submit my own epistemology in return, I think it would be advisable to 
address what you've called the "crux of [our] different perspectives."  Here 
is how you described it:

> I can read your sentences above to mean that Value exists,
> and we differentiate it.  In this way, Value would have to supply
> the source for such differentiation.  So, to summarize, Value exists
> without us, and we differentiate it.  Is this correct?  ...

The first misconception -- and it's a problem in my discourse with others --  
is that Reality is "what exists".   I define "existence" as the awareness or 
cognizance of phenomena occurring in time and space.  Reality, in my 
ontology, transcends this precept; that is to say, the Primary Source is not 
an 'existent' nor is it 'evolutionary' in space/time.  What this 
necessitates is replacing the empirical "precept" of created things and 
events with a "conception" of the uncreated Source (Essence) as more than 
the sum of its parts.  It also requires an understanding which challenges 
'common sense', at least as converyed by language, namely, the paradox that 
Essence is nonexistent.  Incidentally, Eckhart in his gnostic wisdom, got 
around this paradox by defining the Source (God) as 'IS-ness'.

I raise this issue because when you say "Value exists without us", you 
necessarily put Value in the 'essential' category, since without man --  
i.e., subjective cognizance -- there is no existence.  We can say "Value is 
an attribute of Essence" without making Value an existent.  (This Value is 
One with Essence.)  But when we refer to value "existing", we are talking 
about differentiated value(s) which are a product of experience and 
intellection.  In fact, this may be the real "crux" of our differences.

> Now, there is a difference between actualizes and creates.
> Something in existence can be actualized, something can be
> created where it did not exist before.  This is an important
> distinction, and again points to whether man is the measure of
> all things, or whether all things are a measure of man.

I do not comprehend the meaning of "all things are a measure of man"l.  As 
for existence (existents) being "actualized", rather than "created" as anew, 
I accept that distinction and will try to observe it as we explore the 
dynamics of valuism.

Concerning the Tao analysis  . . .

[Mark]:
> The reason I raise this is in response to a question you provided
> a little while ago which asked: If I hadn't read ZMM would I still
> call this Quality?  We all know what Value is, we also all know
> about the electron tunneling which occurs in our brains.  We also
> know everytime our heart is beating where each red blood cells
> are going.  How can we not know this, it is part of us, can't get
> any more personal than that.  So when you state "know", are you
> referring to a symbolic representation through the intellect, or
> are you pointing towards true Knowing?  There is a big difference.
> The purpose of defining it in Taoist terms is to transfer it from an
> internal knowing, to an intellectual knowing.  This is merely for the
> purposes of transferring awareness.

Mark, I never describe biological functions in terms of "knowing", despite 
the fact that my organic being is intimately dependent on them.  "Knowing 
about" electrons, heartbeats, and geneological developments is a part of our 
empirical knowledge, but such collective intelligence is hardly what I would 
call "knowing" in the sense of proprietary awareness.  This is not just a 
matter of whether something is  "personal" or not.  If I, the Knower, am not 
sensibly aware of an event or phenomenon, it cannot be something I have 
actualized or relate to; in other words, it has no more value for me than 
the trajectory of Jupiter's moons.  Am I "pointing to towards true Knowing"? 
If the contents of my awareness constitute True Knowing, then I suppose I 
am.  But I think we have to make this distinction.

> OK, so here we have a difference of opinion.  I take it that your
> assumption is that without our bodies, the subtle differentiations in
> value would not exist.  I would have to ask, as I have before, where
> does this differentiation arise?  ...

I need my body and its functions to "be" a cognizant agent.  Bio-physical 
events, like the gestation of an embryo or the change of seasons, manifest 
the cosmic order of existence for which I am not accountable as an 
'actualizer'.  I did not design or create the universe; I can only realize 
the value of this magnificent system as it relates to me.  It represents 
what I call "essential value".  I can learn facts about it, and draw some 
conclusions or predictions from what I learn, but apart from such empirical 
knowledge, its essence is not proprietary to my awareness.

[SNIP]

[Ham]:
> Value is both "pull" and "push". It is our affinity for (attraction to) 
> the
> Absolute Source and our repulsion of that which negates (diminishes or
> subverts) it. Thus, we experience a range of values relative to and
> representative of our well-being, as determined by our proprietary
> value-orientation.

[Mark]:
> I am not quite sure I get this, but I like it.  The planets circle
> around the sun in what can be described as a balance between
> attraction towards and centrifugal force away from the sun.  There is
> a balance there.  I like the notion that we are in a balance such as
> that.  Can you expand on that statement?

Again, what you have described is the essential nature of created existence. 
The balance and direction of its forces ensures what some call the 
'teleology' or 'intelligent design' of the universe.  These principles of 
nature have value to us insofar as they suggest "purpose", if not "intent" 
on the part of the Creator.  But I think it would be unwise to speculate on 
the "why" of existence when there is so much to conceptualize regarding 
man's role in it.  As I wrote in the preface to my online thesis, "If 
philosophy is to have any meaning for us, it must encompass an understanding 
of the human position - especially with regard to existential Freedom -and 
it must be based upon insight that is both credible and vital to the 
individual."

Can we agree on the interpretation of Existence vis-a-vis Essence that I've 
outlined above?  If so, then I'll be more comfortable providing a rationale 
that you can critique and hopefully add to.  (Of course, this is the stage 
at which I managed to discourage John and Tim.)  Admittedly, much of what I 
have postulated will seem illogical at first reading.  The 'enlightenment' 
comes when you have grasped the concept in its entirety.  The only caveat is 
that, while I gratefully accept criticism and logistical correction, I can't 
deal with a mind closed to new ideas.

I do admire your tenacity, Mark, and look forward to a productive dialogue.

Essentially yours,
Ham