[MD] The Dynamics of Value

[118]

Hi Ham,
Yes, I can accept your premise to see where it leads.  Some clarification below.

On Sat, Jan 8, 2011 at 11:14 AM, Ham Priday <hampday1 at verizon.net> wrote:
> 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'.

[Mark]
Defining the undefinable is obviously requesting a truth about
something.  I can treat your treatment as an analogy, and I have no
problem with it.  The dialogue which makes up the analogy is what I am
after.  Finding meaning in such a thing is the end goal.  I believe I
have an interpretation of Eckhart's writings, we can see if it fits
yours.  I am happy to begin with your description of existence as
awareness, it seems logical.  We have to agree that it is more than
thinking as Descarte's would imply.
>
> 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.

[Mark]
I think the difference is the perspective.  That is, value as created
by a human, and value as sensed by a human.  I would say that love is
something that we can hook into, not create.  Now I don't want to
sound like a geriatric hippy, but this seems to have more validity
than a subjective creation.
>
>> 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.

[Mark]
All things are a measure of man implies that what we percieve is
created for us, not by us.  If something has high Quality, we are
tapping into that.  This is not to say that we will all respond to it
in the same way.  Perhaps it is this personal discrimination that you
are pointing towards.  A white-water ride can be experience
differently by people, this doesn't mean that such a ride does not
exist outside of us.
>
> Concerning the Tao analysis  . . .
>
> [Mark before]:
>>
>> 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.

[Mark]
What I meant is that we Know about electrons without learning about
them.  We have to, they are part of us.  I am trying to distinguish
between the symbolic knowing, and the underlying Knowing.  I just
wanted to clear this up at the beginning.  Our intellectual knowing is
learned, our Knowing is inherent.  So when one says that we all know
what Quality is, this is inherent Knowing, and can only be
extrapolated into the intellectual knowing, not created there.
>
>> 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.

[Mark]
What I am trying to ask is when you say "my" what are you pointing
towards?  Others seem to use this form of "I" or my, in a way which,
while rhetorical, must be addressed when exploring the nature of
things.  So, at what point does the input get translated into the "I"?
 From my investigations, this question leads to a sense of Quality
which is creative and not just experienced.
>
> [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."

[Mark]
Yes, we can surely ascribe direction to the universe, without such,
everything would be random and there would be no self assembly in the
form of life.  This become intelligent in the same way we call
ourselves intelligent.  We cannot separate ourselves from the world as
somehow divine or special.  So, Intelligence is used here
rhetorically, to impart an awareness.  It doesn't really point to a
human force which is dictating.
>
> 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.

[Mark]
Yes, no problem.  Without trying to muddy up the waters, Essence could
also be seen as Nothingness (as you say), and a further
conceptualization could be what is termed Emptiness.  However, in my
opinion, this Buddhist notion is misinterpreted by Western thought
which has to point to something.
>
As always, I enjoy discussing these things with you.

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
>