[MD] Fw: The Dynamics of Value

[Ham Priday]

Hi there, Mark --


[Ham, previously]:
> 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.

You've been holding out on me!  If you've seen angels painting the world, 
surely it's an experience we need to hear about.  I haven't included any 
angels in my thesis.  What do they look like?  What do they paint with?

[Previously]:
> 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.

The Quality [Value] I see is differentiated and relational   Value, as I 
sense it (pre-experientially), is what I am not.  It is what makes ME 
"imaginary", that is, creative.

[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?

There is no more to the world than the Other actualized by the Self from 
Value.
If you are asking "is there more to Reality?" my answer is "absolutely".

> 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.

Sorry if my comparison offended you, Mark.  It is my assumption from the MD 
postings that most of the participants reject the idea of anything but 
Quality as the primary source and, although you define Quality as "the 
division between things", you seem to have adopted that concept.

I don't see or experience "the division between"; I see only the finite 
"things" that difference actualizes.  So, for me, "difference" is 
nothingness.  And, because the Essence I have posited contains no 
nothingness, I intuit that nothingness comes from me -- from my experiential 
perspective, my nature as a conscious agent.  You, on the other hand, are 
now identifying it with Quality.  I find this strangely nihilistic ontology 
a "fallback" position from what we had previously agreed on.

But I'm optimistic.  I'm hoping further contemplation will reveal the 
fallacy of this analysis and reverse your current ontology.

Anyway, thanks for the clarification, Mark.

Best wishes for a quick recovery,
Ham