[MD] The Dynamics of Value

[Ham Priday]

Hi Mark --

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

[SNIP]

> 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 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.

Difference IS the human perspective of otherness that we call existence.  It 
is an other because it is not the self but an experiential representation of 
Value divided by the self's nothingness.  Existence is not "reality" because 
the Absolute Source knows no other.  Again, Mark, we do NOT create value; we 
differentiate it incrementally and objectify it as the things and events of 
our existence.  Love is an emotional response to what the self interprets as 
an object, person, or event of special interest.  It is experienced when one 
focuses  value-sensibility on a specific phenomenon.

[Ham, previously]:
> I do not comprehend the meaning of "all things are a measure of man".
> As for existence (existents) being "actualized", rather than "created" 
> 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
> experienced differently by people, this doesn't mean that such
> a ride does not exist outside of us.

If experience is a construct of our values, as I maintain, how is what we 
perceive "created for us"?   The only precept that fits this description are 
the form and design of experiential Being, including the universe and the 
laws of nature that order it.  In this design is the "essential value" 
needed to produce a planet suitable for human habitation.  I don't care much 
for the cavalier "tapping into" connotation for value-sensibility.  We are 
constantly actualizing our world according to our proprietary sensibility, 
whether it is "low-Q" or "high-Q" value.  A white-water ride may be a 
thrilling experience emotionally, but the process of actualizing it is no 
different than actualizing your kitchen table.

[Ham before]:
> 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. ...

[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.

We know about electrons because someone told us.  So such knowledge is 
non-experiential or "symbolic".  Okay, but do we not also intellectualize 
everything we experience?  If I'm driving my car and it suddenly starts 
bumping up and down on the road, I know I must have a flat tire.  If the 
soup I'm eating tastes flat, I reach for the salt and pepper.  That's 
intellection, Mark.  It goes hand-in-hand with man being the measure of all 
things.

> 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.

Self-awareness is a given, even before the "input" stage of knowing.  It 
really didn't require a Descartes to confirm that awareness is proprietary 
to the self.  For the newborn child, the entire world is that self.  It 
quickly learns, by relating to its mother and testing its experience, that 
the objects of experience are "external".  Since all experience is 
valuistic, and the sense of quality is proprietary, I don't see where you're 
trying to lead me.  Yes, experience is "creative" or "effective", as opposed 
to "passive", in the sense that it actualizes otherness as objects.  Is that 
the point you want to make?

 [SNIP]

[Ham before]:
> Can we agree on the interpretation of Existence vis-a-vis
> Essence that I've outlined above?  If so, I'll be more
> comfortable providing a rationale that you can critique and
> hopefully add to.

[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.

Human experience is "value specific".  Ultimate reality is not.  However, 
emptiness or nothingness cannot be a source of Value; it can only divide or 
separate what Value represents to the observer.  So, yes I agree that the 
Buddhist notion of emptiness (which I believe involves "clearing the mind" 
of extraneous thoughts and desires for meditative purposes) has been 
misconstrued, or at least misapplied to metaphysics.

> As always, I enjoy discussing these things with you.

> Same here, Mark.  Could I have your inputs on the conversion of Value to 
> concrete experience, as I seem to lack the proper words to explain it.