[MD] Fw: The Dynamics of Value

[118]

On Fri, Jan 14, 2011 at 12:35 PM, Ham Priday <hampday1 at verizon.net> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Jan 14, 2011 at 1:51 AM, Mark ununoctiums at gmail.com wrote:
>[Mark before]
>> 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.
>[Ham]
> 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.

[Mark]
Ham I agree with you, I was simply following up on your use of
"illusion", and making the same point you are making.  Sorry if that
was unclear.  The use of illusion, as John points out is a rhetorical
device for meaning not real.  Now, I do not want to get on a debate of
reality, so I'll leave it that I was quoting E.A. Poe, who based his
statement on his experience.  Also, I love that poem.
>
[Mark before]
>> 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.

[Mark]
Possibly, but you have no idea what I have experienced.  I have seen
angels painting this world, literally.  So, be careful not to project
your experience on to mine.
>
> 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."

[Mark]
Yes, modern physics/metaphysics, for what it is worth.  Currently I am
reading a book by two physicists entitled "Endless Universe, Beyond
the Big Bang" (Steinhartdt and Turok).  They propose a cyclic
universe, based on the existing data.  Interesting that this is going
back to the hindu notion of creation and destruction.  As man has
progressed, he has gotten so far from the real beginnings, and created
a whole nother world in his mind.  We would do well to revisit what
has already been proposed before all this math.  The book is well
reviewed by Martin Rees, Brian Greene, and Roger Penrose.  The point
is, that you can bring in the big guns, but they do not know more than
you do  about these things.
>
> 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.

[Mark]
On the contrary, my primary source is the division between things, or
Quality.  So there is no hypocrisy here.   You say Absolute, I say
Quality. Mine you can see, yours is imaginary.
>
> [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. ...
>
[Ham]
> 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.
>
[Mark]
Ham, I am simply using your math.   You state (and I quote) "In a
"quantitative sense", it's [Other] the Absolute Source less the
sensibility of its co-dependent agent (self) [Ham (1/10/11)]".  The
equation for this is: (Absolute) - (Self) = (Other).  By rearrangement
we can also say that (Self) + (Other) = (Absolute).  So my statement
is consistent.  You describe a world which is made up of self and
other, are you saying that there is more?  Now you may not have meant
this, but I found it intriguing, and worthy of contemplation (which is
still going on).  It is along the lines of codependence, but with
unity.

[Mark before]
>> 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?

[Mark]
I am not sure what the fallback is that you are talking about. Could
you explain that?  At the same time, could you explain who the "us" is
that enables us to create our own reality?  Can you walk through
walls, or is that one of the parameters?  Where do the parameters
stop, what is the demarkation, is it in the synapses of the brain?
When does the free choice come in, in your opinion?  My schemes are
indeed grand, perhaps I do not convey this, but please do not lump me
in with whomever.
>
> I'm sorry about your wiring problem, Mark, but hope it is only temporary and
> that your meditation will be fruitful.

[Mark]
Yes, fruitful indeed, thanks.
>
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
>