[MD] Fw: The Dynamics of Value

[118]

Hey Ham,

On Sun, Jan 16, 2011 at 11:32 AM, Ham Priday <hampday1 at verizon.net> wrote:
> Hi there, Mark --
>
>
> [Ham, previously]:
>>
>> Things aren't what they seem to be, and the reality of "being"
>> itself is open to debate.
>
> [Mark also previously]
>>
>> 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?

[Mark]
Well, then you haven't been following my posts (can't blame you).
They looked like angels and they painted with paintbrushes.  Do you
think that people just made angels up?  Why would they do that?  And
no, don't give me some psychology mumbo jumbo, that would demean our
interaction.  There was a time when I was heavily into synchronicity.
I wrote about it in one of my posts.  The endeavor was to pay
attention to everything that was happening and see my place, on a
moment to moment basis.  Let me say, that although it was eye-opening,
it is not a good place to exist, if one wants to survive.  During that
period, I saw many things that I now know exist, I have chosen to shut
them out, just for self preservation.  Nobody likes a schizophrenic...

>
> [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 before]
>>
>> 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]
> 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]
Interesting although I do not quite understand it.  It seems to me
that perhaps a primary reason that you subscribe to Absolute Essence,
is that you cannot remember anything from before your birth, so you
assume you were nothing.  This places memory in very high importance.
I would also seem that you see this existence as finite and a one-off.
 This is also based on your extrapolation of experience, and the
disappearance and creation of people around you.  If nothing else a
form of memory exists before and after us, which is part of us.  We
now speak of genetic memory as if it were real.  I am sure this is not
the only kind.  But then, we don't know very much do we.  Let us just
say that previous lifetimes of the "I" do exist.  There is no memory
because that is a physical property, but the sense of "I" is the same,
just in a different body.  Would that fit into your metaphysics, or is
your metaphysics confined to existential existence?

>
[Ham before]
> 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".

[Mark]
Again, I was just using your statement of what Other was, and you
answer that.  I am not asking about Reality.  From my perspective, the
actualization causes self and other, that actualization is called
Quality because it creates qualitative differences between self and
other.  I put the emphasis on the force which creates differences, you
put the emphasis on a self which creates other.  I think this is just
a matter of perspective, and that we agree fundamentally.
>
>> 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.

[Mark]
I think the problem is in what you think I think Quality is.  Yes,
Quality is the fundamental source, it is what differentiates.  From an
analogy in physics, it could be called a Higgs Field.  I will begin a
post on that some time since people seem to get a lot from analogies
from the metaphysics of physics.  By placing Quality as the primary
source, there is no need to create something that we can never
experience such as Absolute essence, everything is right here, nothing
behind the veil.  Seems a bit simpler to me.  So, when you say I have
"adopted that concept", I am not sure what concept you are speaking
of, since most in this forum do not seem to agree with me and continue
to try to make a Western philosophy out of MoQ.
>
[Ham]
> 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.

[Mark]
You are touching on my metaphysics with your first sentence above.  I
do not think we are that separate in ideas.  The only difference is
who is in charge of value.  I don't see how I can be in charge of
creation.  Creation happens to me.  Free will comes from my intent.
Again, I can point to the Avatar analogy.  If Quality is nihilistic,
then so be it, but I see it as extremely uplifting.  I say Quality
creates, you say you create.  Again, it is a difference in
perspective, but the building blocks are the same.
>
[Ham]
> But I'm optimistic.  I'm hoping further contemplation will reveal the
> fallacy of this analysis and reverse your current ontology.

[Mark]
I am always willing to learn more, and have done so already from your posts.
>
Thank you,

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
>