[MD] The Dynamics of Value

[118]

Hi Ham,

On Mon, Jan 10, 2011 at 2:01 PM, Ham Priday <hampday1 at verizon.net> wrote:
[Ham]
>
> 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.

Well, I can almost see an equation with your first sentence, which
makes me daydream.  There is something there, but I'll have to wait
until my brain sorts it out and tells me.  In terms of love, one could
also see love arising before the person or special event.  When it
arises, we then place it on an object such as another person.  This
makes more sense to me, because it is something we cannot control.  If
it arises outside of us, it makes it uncontrollable.  So, love enters
in, and then we attempt to rationalize it by the other person, or some
brain chemistry, or some need.  But all this is just intellectual
justification which indicates that love is created by us.  The
opposite can be supported just as readily.  That is, that love creates
the object of desire.  This would be a case of high Value impinging on
our lives.  Do you see what I mean?  Value happens to us, and it does
not arise from us.  There is no place for it to arise from.
>
> [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]:
>>
[SNIP]
>
> 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.

[Mark]
Well, that is just the point, I am maintaining that value constructs
our experiences.  You are taking the opposite approach.  However, they
could be the same thing in the end.  I can drop the tapping into, I
can refer to its emergence in a human form through us.  In this way,
we are not technically actualizing it, but we are transforming it.
Again, this may be the same thing.  We transform sunlight into heat,
we do not actualize the sunlight.  I will agree that our perception of
low and high Q, is a complex function of Value and our bodies, but for
this to happen, a difference in value has to already exist.  Yes,
kitchen tables and white water rides, different types of the same
thing.
>
> [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 also before]:
>>
>> 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.

[Mark]
I was trying to distinguish between intellectual knowing and Knowing.
We Know about electrons because they are part of us, we do not call
them electrons of course.  Such Knowing is not confined to an
intellectual symbol.  It is this Knowing that we experience our place
in Quality.  Now, intellectual knowing is much more limited, since it
must create symbols which greatly simplify a complex awareness.  We
Know that within, we know that without.  Such without also includes
our symbology of our own body and feelings.  This could be termed the
simplified intellectual level, that part of the intellectual level
that is used for communication.  So, I have no problem with man
measuring things with symbols, but that is far from all things, very
far.
>
>> 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?

[Mark]
I agree with you description of self-awareness, well put.  I am not
trying to lead you anywhere.  I am proposing a perspective through
rhetoric.  Our metaphysical perspectives are creative.  They are meant
to impart meaning through words.  I think that is my point.  There are
many ways to skin a cat, each one is valid.  At the same time, I am
trying to rectify your understanding with mine.  My statements are my
attempt to do that for myself, and receive discussion on your part.  I
have nothing vested in my present point of view, except that I want a
perspective to mature.
>
> [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.

[Mark]
My interpretation of emptiness is that it is a result of intellectual
reductionism.  What better to end up with than Nothing.  One cannot
subdivide that.  However, such a thing must be arrived at through a
tortuous path, and cannot be simply stated as a concept and
understood.  I do not think the Buddhist empties his mind by any
means, he is thinking all the time, just in a different (detached)
way.  Of course the use of the adjective detached is not nihilistic,
but one which symbolizes great freedom.  It is the attempt to try to
conceive the underlying, which you are also doing (in my opinion).
Different words may ultimately mean the same thing.
>
[Ham]>
>> 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.

[Mark]
If I use your description, or at least my understanding of it (which I
do like despite my statements), concrete experience is Value in motion
with residuals.  This is why I suggest that by realizing other, we are
channeling it through us.  As such, we do not have to exist, because
our body does that channeling for us.  And, that other does not have
to be separate from the body.  A picture comes to mind, don't know
why, but it is of the creation of Adam on the Sistine Chapel ceiling
by Michelangelo.  In this part of the painting, what is represented as
God, is channeling life into Adam.  This is the transfer (continual)
of Value through the human body.  One cannot take this painting
literally of course.   Our brain acts as an imperfect recording
device, so a trail of that value is left in our heads, some ending up
as memory.  I would say that all of this is experience, the motion of
the comet, and its tail.  We could say that our purpose is for
Absolute Essence to see itself.  Kind of like a cloud allows us to see
water.  Maybe not a good analogy, but the best I can come up with in
this train of thought.

Perhaps at some point we can relate what our perspective does for us
during a snippet of life.  It is this meaning that makes it valid,
whether or not others agree with it.

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
>