[MD] Fw: The Dynamics of Value

[118]

Hi Ham,

On Mon, Jan 17, 2011 at 3:11 PM, Ham Priday <hampday1 at verizon.net> wrote:

>
> I just went through a search of my e-mailbox since June 10, 2009, and could
> find no reference to angels, painting or otherwise.  What "magic substance"
> were you on at the time of this "synchronicity" experience?  Possobly you
> are referring to a dream or metaphor that escapes me.  In any case, you
> should be aware that verbal leg-pulling does not enhance your credibility
> with me.

[Mark]
You are correct, I have not mentioned painting angels, it was not my
intent to mislead you.  What I was writing was that I do not dismiss
the spiritual or Theism.  I have made that clear to others.  I also do
not dismiss science, or metaphysics.  I find they are all part of the
same thing, that is, a creation of our brains.  They are a way of
putting things together so that they have meaning.  No there was no
magic substance, I arrived there by thought alone.  It is possible to
believe in many things.  You can appreciate this when you state that
we create our value.  No dream or metaphor, I saw what I saw, fully
awake.  I do not engage in verbal leg-pulling.  What I state is what I
believe to be of the highest quality.  If I change my mind, then
something else is put into that higher quality.  I do not find
anything to be permanent.  Rhetoric is king, as Pirsig says.
>
>
> I did not exist before birth, nor do I expect to exist in an afterlife.  But
> that isn't the reason I believe in Absolute Essence.  The 'essence' of my
> sensibility is Value which transcends existence -- mine or any one else's.
> If there is any future for this singular awareness of Ham, it is bound up in
> my "value-complement".  (I've touched on that concept in my online thesis.)

[Mark]
Yes, I understand.  It is possible to truly believe else-wise.  Such
else-wise can be arrived at through logical meditation, not requiring
any leap of faith.  You are expressing a materialist view, that what
we are is the sum total of our physical bodies.  This is somewhat
prevalent, especially amongst the intellectuals in this day and age.
If this body is the sum total, that is a machine, what is it that
makes it ours?
>
> "Existential existence" is a redundancy.  Also, this Eastern notion of
> "reincarnated lifetimes" with no memory makes no sense to me.  Without
> memory every self ('I') is the same as every other self.  If, as you say,
> memory is a "physical property", putting me in another body would give me
> the memory of my new body, not the former one.  What, then, is there of "me"
> but a clear slate with which to experience a new life?  Again, each "self"
> identifies with the memory of its singular pass through existence, previous
> lifetimes notwithstanding.

[Mark]
This would imply that we are our thoughts.  I can also appreciate that
point of view.  Let me ask you a question.  If you were to lose all
your memory and start over again.  Would the old you be dead?  Or,
would you still be here, just without a memory?  It is possible to
appreciate the notion that thoughts are what happens to us.  That is
that we are present witnessing our thoughts.  I think that the "I" or
the atman (or soul), is derived from intent.  It is our connection
with Quality.  It is also Quality in itself.  But I may be stretching
the definition for some.  However, that is want I believe to be of the
highest quality.  Yes, by my logic, if you displaced somebody and took
over there body, you would have that memory, but it would still be you
having that memory.  It is what is behind that makes us unique.  The
rest is mechanics.
>

> [Mark Previously]:
>>>
>>> ... 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.
>
[Ham]
> A cognizant subject (self) interacts with objects and other selves.  The
> experienced form of these objects and selves is actualized by the observing
> subject.  We do not "walk through walls" or float through ceilings because
> the laws of nature provide  physical bodies a stable and consistent physical
> environment.  The human brain does not create the physical principles of
> existence; it only intellectualizes them.  I suggest that you consider the
> design of the cosmos a given, like the sum of 2+2.

[Mark]
Yes, it can be a given through our intellect.  But our intellect
creates such a given.  At the same time, such given creates our
intellect.  There is no way to separate ones body from the rest of the
world.  We are constantly exchanging the physical properties on a
second to second basis.  Oxygen is part of our bodies for a short
while then out of us.  There is no part of our physical attributes
that we can definitely call our own.
>
[Ham]
> Apart from the order of existence, everything else -- the forms,
> appearances, aesthetics, virtues, intelligence, symmetry, and meanings -- is
> a "value construct" of subjective sensibility.  I think it could be said
> that the Quality of our reality is the consequence of free choice.

[Mark]
Yes, I would agree that it can be said to be a construct.  But I would
say that such a construct is created for us, not by us.  We cannot
choose how our brain thinks, that is like a wave choosing which way to
go.  What we can choose, through free will, is our attitude towards
such thought.  In this way certain thoughts can be removed.  We cannot
create thoughts, since this would imply that there is a part of our
brain that is the creator, and such a thing does not exist.  It is all
one big brain, there is no central control somewhere.  It is possible
to sit back and watch your brain think.  This is meditation.

>[Ham]
> The essence of existence is Value.  So, in that sense, our universe is a
> value "creation".  How we experience (i.e., "actualize") this creation is
> largely our own choice.  I must point out, however, that since Value
> [Quality] is not an existent but an attribute of the Absolute Source
> (essence), it cannot be nothingness.  That's where we disagree, Mark.

[Mark]
The word Nothingness denotes something, it is a proper noun.  So,
perhaps we should drop it, since it is misleading.  I do not think
that Quality needs an absolute source to exist.  I believe it can
exist on its own.  Perhaps that is where we disagree.  I prefer the
simpler answer.

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
>