[MD] Fw: The Dynamics of Value

[Ham Priday]

On Wed, Jan 14, 2011 at 1:51 AM, Mark ununoctiums at gmail.com wrote:

> Yes, a dream within a dream.  It would seem that we are
> switching words for rhetorical effect, which I do not have a
> problem with by the wayt.  So, reality is now illusion.  I like
> the term appearance, however, I am not quite sure why.
> I am also a fan of the holographic universe.  But, that
> something is more real than this, I don't know.  I use the
> word illusion when people seem so sure about what they
> are saying.

No, Mark, existence isn't a dream within a dream.  If "dream" is the proper 
descriptor for the relational world, it's a dream derived from Reality. 
That you don't acknowledge something "more real" than this disappoints me. 
Agnosticism concerning the primary source amounts to nihilism, since if you 
don't believe in a creator, how can you believe in the illusion it creates? 
Your belief is in fact founded on nothingness.

> Well Buddha talked about it.  It is the result of reductive
> analysis without any desire to find a unifying creator.  It is
> also pretty easy to analyze reality in that way.

You are analyzing reality from what you think you know from experience. 
Yet, even the empiricists have demonstrated that experience is limited and 
fallible.  Things aren't what they seem to be, and the reality of "being" 
itself is open to debate.

Astrophysicist Paul Davies, for example, says: "The universe looks as if it 
is unfolding according to some plan or blueprint.  The input is the cosmic 
initial conditions, and the output is organized complexity, or depth.  The 
essential feature is that something of value emerges as the result of 
processing according to some ingenious pre-existing set of rules.  These 
rules look as if they are the product of intelligent design.  My own 
inclination is to suppose that qualities such as ingenuity, economy, beauty, 
and so on have a genuine transcendent reality--they are not merely the 
product of human experience--and that these qualities are reflected in the 
structure of the natural world."

I suspect that like most others here, you are persuaded that belief in a 
primary source is clinging to faith in outmoded spiritual dogma.  RMP 
himself steered clear of positing a creator on the ground that "people think 
you are a religious nut."  This is the height of hypocrisy for a philosopher 
who speaks of Quality as if it were the ultimate essence.

[Ham, previously]:
> Metaphysically, [otherness] 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".

[Mark]
> What I interpret from this is that realizing other makes us whole
> again, and thus we are always trying to approach the Absolute
> Source.  I kind of like this (at least my interpretation of your
> paragraph).  I suppose you could also say that the self is other
> less that which is the self. ...

That last statement is self-contradicting.  Everything, including 
proprietary (proprioceptive) feeling, is otherness.  Human experience is 
totally dependent on the source of otherness for the illusion it actualizes. 
Absolute Essence is the only 'not-other' by definition.  But your persuasion 
to the contrary is the choice of a cognitive subject.  If I could prove the 
truth of my ontology to you, neither you nor I would be a free agent.

> So, value makes us intuit the Absolute source.  I would
> also call this Quality.  I think I am having a wiring problem
> in my brain now, so I'll have to slow down and meditate
> on this.  Too many images streaming past now.

Value enables us to create our own reality within the parameters of 
existence.
What we "intuit" is a matter of free choice.

This fallback in your position doesn't surprise me.  It seems to occur with 
everyone I've talked to at a certain stage of the dialogue.  It's as if they 
fear progressing further in the discussion.  The question is: Will they 
overcome this barrier, or is their mind permanently closed to the grander 
scheme of things?

I'm sorry about your wiring problem, Mark, but hope it is only temporary and 
that your meditation will be fruitful.

Essentially yours,
Ham