[MD] The Dynamics of Value

[John Carl]

Good morning Ham,

It's raining here, as it must be all over the world what with all the
stories of floods on the news.  Last night on coast to coast, a guy was on
who sounded pretty interesting who claims that we're due for a big ole ice
age.  Maybe we should fight the ice age with anthropogenic global warming
and it'd actually be a draw in the end.

Ham:


> There IS NO nothingness, which is why there is no otherness in Reality.
> The conclusion we can draw from this is that Existence is an "illusion" or
> (to borrow Hegel's word) "appearance".  Existence is a world of appearances
> where the phenomena experienced reflect the 'IS-ness' of the Absolute Source
> differentially.
>

John:  I certainly agree about the lack of nothingness, but I'm not so sure
about there being no otherness.  There sure SEEMS to be otherness in
Reality, and acting upon this seeming produces useful action.  So
pragmatically, it makes sense to me to go along with the game.  Whether it's
ultimately real or not.

Ham:


> I'm not sure who introduced the term "co-dependent arising", but it's an
> appropriate metaphor for the dichotomy I have postulated as Self/Other.


John:

Actually, I think we first encountered the term on this forum, as used by
Mark if I'm recalling correctly.  So kudos, even though it appears I've
wrested the concept away to fit my own views.  And I'm glad you agree that
it's an appropriate metaphor for the self/other dichotomy.  We are in
agreement then.

Ham:


> Only a conscious agent (self) can realize the value of an Other, so I've
> called the realizing self 'Sensibility' and its objective referent 'the
> Value of Other'.  What, then, is this "other" that is realized by the
> conscious self?
>
>
John:

It varies, right?

Ham:

In a "quantitative sense", it's the Absolute Source less the sensibility of
> its co-dependent agent (self).  Metaphysically, it is Essence realized
> valuistically by a negated subject whose existence is totally dependent on
> the Value of its Source (essent-value).  Thus, for simplicity sake, we can
> call this simulated or actualized other the "essent" and the value-sensible
> self  the "negate".  These are the terms I have adopted for the ontogeny of
> Essentialism.  Co-dependency is a fitting description for this dichotomous
> relationship.
>

John:

Whew!  All I can say is that when you use the term "for simplicity sake" you
mean something far different than what I'd use it to mean!  But again, I'm
glad to see that "in essence" we agree.

Ham:

Ham is not a Buddhist, Mark.  But neither is he "irritated" by these
> concepts of
> "independent arising" and "value without consciousness".  As you correctly
> point out, Essentialism does not rule out Value or Sensibility as coherent
> in Essence, but there is no way to describe the Oneness of Essence in
> symbolic language.


John:  Are you so sure Ham?  Have you tried?  And if, having tried, what
evidence do you have that you are not successful?  I mean, it seems to me
that "describing the Oneness of Essence in symbolic language" is at the root
of your whole effort, and thus I'd beg to differ with your claim that you
are not doing so.  I'd go one step further, and say that there is no way to
NOT describe it.  That that is what we do, all the time, with all our words
and formulations.

Ham:


>  Suffice it to say that nothing we feel or experience can have any more
> truth or significance
> than the ultimate source from which it is derived.  Human understanding at
> its best is imperfect and transitory because it is contaminated by our own
> nothingness.
>

John:

I thought you didn't believe in nothingness.  And yet here you are using it
to disprove our somethingness.  I'd formulate this much more positively than
you:

Everything we feel and experience has truth or significance, relative to the
ultimate source from which it is derived.  Human understanding is at its
best due to its imperfections and transitory graspings, which we share and
compare and build up analogue upon analogue of improving understandings,
which leads to an intuitive understanding of what is being pointed at.  Much
in the way that we understand intuitively that 1.99999999999 is pointing at
2.

I offer an extensive and precise quote from Ellul, explaining far better
than I, exactly what I mean, and how I see it:

>From the Humiliation of the Word:

Meaning is uncertain;  therefore I must constantly fine-tune my language and
work at reinterpreting the words I hear.  I try to understand what the other
person says to me.  All language is more or less a riddle to be figured out;
it is like interpreting a text that has many possible meanings.  In my
effort at understanding and interpretation, I establish definitions, and
finally  a meaning.


The thick haze of discourse produces meaning.


All of intellectual life (and I use the word "all" advisedly) even that of
specialist in the most exact sciences, is based on these instabilities,
failures to understand, and errors in interpretation, which we must find a
way to go beyond and overcome.


Mistaking a person's language keeps me from "taking" the person--from taking
him prisoner.


We are in the presence of an infinitely and unexpectedly rich tool, so that
the tiniest phrase unleashes an entire polyphonic gamut of meaning, The
ambiguity of language, and even its ambivalence and its contradiction,
between the moment it is spoken and the moment it is received produce
extremely intense activities.  Without such activities, we would be ants or
bees, and our drama and tragedy would quickly be dried up and empty.


Between the moment of speech and the moment of reception are born symbol,
metaphor and analogy.


Through language I lay hold of two completely different objects.  I bring
them together, establishing between them a relationship of similarity or
even identity.  In this manner I come to know this distant, unknown object,
through its resemblance.


It becomes intelligible to me, because through language I have brought it
near this other one that I know well.  Tis an astonishing process, and
logically a foolish one.  It is obviously an indefensible operation, yet
there it is, utterly successful, utterly enlightening.

---------

And thanks, Ham, for your discerning engagement as usual.

John