[MD] The Dynamics of Value

[Jan-Anders]

Hi Mark and Ham

I think you are closing in to the Dynamic Quality as being the balance 
of the Essence in three independent classes;
physical (energy, mass, number) physical value (1, 2, 3 or more)
pattern (form, shape, arithmetic) patternal value (triangulas, dollars, 
organic species)
value (depending upon the relation between two existenses) relative 
value based on the fitness between or just bad taste.

The essential conditions for symbols to *appear* in mind and on paper as 
existence are independent from the conditions for the pattern they make. 
The third set of conditions are about how arranged symbols and patterns 
are related to other arrangements.
Like letters making words, words in a sentence or motorcycle parts put 
together in the right or wrong way. The value of a key depends also on 
the locker. The key can be copied and made up of different material and 
still keep its value. A number 2 can be represented by many different 
patterns. 2 dollar is of higher value than 2 Chinese Yuan. 2 is mass, 
dollar is pattern and the value is depending on what it will be compared 
with.

Number is a matter of real physics and accounting standards. Currency is 
a matter of justice and strictly regulated by the social society. Value 
is buying power and tied to the freedom of acting, i e the right to do 
whatever the owner like to do with the money. If you can't count right, 
if you can't see the difference between US and Zimbawian dollars, if you 
can't tell what is cheap and what is expensive, then you will be screwed.

Jan-Anders

part:
>> >  The philosophy of Essence starts, not with quality or experience, but with
>> >  the premise 'ex nihilo nihil fit' [nothing comes from nothingness],
>> >  attributed to Lucretius. ?It posits Essence as the "absolute potentiality"
>> >  of all that is or appears to be. ?Essence encompasses the "virtues" of
>> >  Sensibility, Order, Beauty, Truth, and Goodness, as well as their antonyms,
>> >  in the Oneness.of an uncreated Source. ?So that these values may be realized
>> >  from the perspective of an "other", and since there is no other within or
>> >  outside of Essence, conscious agents come into existence by negation from
>> >  (rather than as an addition to) an omnipotent source. ?The order and
>> >  dynamics of relational existence reflect the perfect balance of the Absolute
>> >  Source, while its qualitative properties represent Essential Value
>> >  differentiated by the negated self whose proprietary nature is
>> >  value-sensibility.
> [Mark]
> Much as I hate to bring this up, the balance you speak of is somewhat
> Taoist.  I say this only in that I agree with you, and will drop
> further reference.  A physical analogy which I think may also lend
> something to your paragraph is the creation and destruction of
> particles.  These particles arise from nothing (literally) and
> complement each other.  The electron and the positron are one such
> example, however every particle that we envision has its counterpart.
> The creation and rapid destruction of such particles can be seen in
> large colliders.  Energy and mass must be conserved (as far as we are
> concerned), so particles and anti-particles must be formed at the same
> time.  One way that I explain this, is seeing nothing as a flat line,
> and every now and again, a heart beat is noted.  We exist in the
> non-flat line part.  In this way, your absolute source would be a flat
> line which is capable of being anything, but such anything must be
> balanced
>
>
>> >
>> >  The primary dichotomy of existence is not Static/Dynamic but
>> >  Sensibility/Otherness; and otherness is objectivized experientially from the
>> >  Value realized by the cognizant agent. ?The only "split" or division of the
>> >  Source is its potentiality to create "otherness" negationally. ?That
>> >  Essence-denied versus Essence-affirmed is the paradigm of creation suggests
>> >  that there is a valuistic purpose for man's existence. ?The Essential
>> >  ontology affords each individual self the freedom to create its own reality
>> >  within the parameters of a predetermined relational system. ?Thus, the self
>> >  may be understood as the uniquely sensible agent whereby Essence is
>> >  completed or "perfected" by an extrinsic perspective of Value.
> [Mark]
> Here you divide reality (for lack of a better term) into the physical
> and the relational.  It can be said that gravity is relational,
> whereas a planet and sun is physical.  The relational gives rise to
> value, but requires this to relate.  A planet needs a sun to feel
> gravity.  I am not quite sure about the purpose part.  This sounds a
> little deterministic to me.  However, this is just nitpicking at this
> point, and requires further conversation.  There is no reason to think
> that we do not have free will, even if we are determined in such a way
> as to think that we have free will; free will is a human concept, and
> we certainly have that.
>> >
>> >  It is my hope that this ontology will be viewed as a metaphysical extension
>> >  of Pirsig's Quality thesis, rather than an attempt by an "antagonist" to
>> >  invalidate the MoQ for his own purposes. ?I anticipate questions and
>> >  criticisms from Mark, and others who may be "standing by", which I shall try
>> >  to answer to the best of my ability.
> [Mark]
> As I see it, you are creating a dichotomy which could perhaps be
> included in a Metaphysics of Quality.  If the physical is static
> quality, and the relational is dynamic quality, then perhaps these
> could be paired off.  It is also possible that the two are
> incompatible.  Even with your ontology, it would appear that your
> division is somewhat intertwined.  What we are perhaps attempting is
> the creation of the best rhetoric with which to convey a metaphysics
> which contains Value.  I am not stuck on one way or the other by any
> means.
>
> Hope I don't put you off with my neophytic understanding.
> Mark
>> >