[MD] Fw: The Dynamics of Value

[Ham Priday]

Mark --


> Well, we are speaking past each other.  I do not think there is
> resolution to whether we create quality, or sense it, using our
> current discourse.  I am fine with that since in the end it still
> places Value (Quality} in high standing either way.  I am simply
> providing reasons why I believe we cannot create value, and are
> in its presence.

Am I speaking past you when I say we do not create quality or value?  I've 
stated this repeatedly, yet you continue to defend the premise as if I'm 
denying it.  We ARE irretrievably "in the presence of Value," since our 
awareness is its sensibility.  My argument is not that we create Value but 
that without sensibility value could not exist in the differentiated way 
that we experience it.  It is our differentiation of sensed Value that 
enables us to actualize the images and phenomena that constitute our 
experiential world.  Now that we have (I hope) resolved that controversy, we 
can "move on to other aspects of the dynamics."

You asked if a total loss of memory would reduce me psychically to a newborn 
infant with a new identity.  I responded that, inasmuch as my awareness is 
largely the memory of past experience relative to my being, I would be 
starting out all over again as a new person.

Now you want to parse this dilemma even more speculatively:

> Well, then my follow up question would be, if you lost half your
> memory, would you only be half Ham?  What would the other
> half be?

One thing is sure: I can't be half Ham and half somebody else.  Human beings 
are not collective organisms or colonies like fungi or sponges.  The 
individual self is an indivisible integer of conscious awareness.  It cannot 
be shared with other selves in the way that software is shared in a 
computer.  The core self -- Sensibility -- is the same for each and every 
individual.  But self-awareness arises co-dependently with being, as you 
yourself have stipulated.  And that dependency makes each self a unique 
individual relative to existential reality.

> In my opinion there is something more fundamental that makes us
> feel our presence as unique or conscious.  A whirlpool is the sum
> total of the water which encompasses it, yet it is also something more.
> It is that something more that I am pointing to.  It would seem that
> for you, we are the sum total of our physical presence and our memories.
> This would make us computers.  There is something more which I
> believe is present.  This argument is no different from the ghost in the
> machine argument.  That ghost is an apparition of Quality, who's aspect
> from a human point of view can be analogized as Intent.

That's precisely what Sensibility means.  You're restating the point I've 
been trying to drive home to the 'Marshans' here who reject subjective 
awareness.  I have defined the cognizant self as value-sensibility. 
Inanimate objects, like whirlpools and computers, don't possess conscious 
sensibility; they only behave as they were programmed by nature or man to 
behave.  Animals are driven by instinct toward values which ensure their 
survival.  Only man is free to choose his values and run with them.  Hence, 
the development of human civilization that reflects the intellectual, moral, 
aesthetic, cultural and spiritual values of its individual participants.

> I would define it as that which feels or is aware of the memory.
> The underlying presense which places you in this world, the avatar
> if you will.  You will still be that presence even if you were in a new
> brain.  I will never know the true you, just your physical incarnation.
> The word "Namaste" means, the soul within in me salutes the soul
> within you, that is a good example of what I am talking about.
> The real you could be anybody to me, I will never know the true
> you that is looking through those eyes, or writing these posts.
> Sorry, that is the best I can explain it for now.

Certainly "feeling" is a significant element of sensibility; likewise 
"intent".  In the preface to my thesis, I wrote: "I have always believed 
that ultimate truth had more to do with 'feelings' than with reason, that 
sensibility--not empirical evidence--is the key to cosmic truth."  I still 
do, although I tend to associate "feelyness" with the leftist-liberal 
mindset and don't stress it.  But when it comes to defining consciousness, I 
don't think there is any better term than "self-awareness", especially in 
the context of value-sensibility.

[Ham before]:
[Mark before]
>> There is no way to separate one's 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]
> Except that, as living beings, we are identified by our body and no other
> person has conscious possession of it.

[Mark]
Exactly, that is what I mean.
>>
> [Ham before]
>> Are you suggesting that someone else chooses our life
>> goals and directs the course of our history?

[Mark]:
> That is a good question, if one need choice to be introduced
> into the equation.  Do we choose which body to have?
> If not, then who chooses it?  I do not think such a question is
> meaningful at this point.  I am not aware of alien beings or
> computer software that is doing this to us.  I suppose it is
> possible, but I remain ignorant of such a thing.  However,
> there is free will, beyond the mechanics.  It is more subtle and
> hard to identify.  This is why I analogize it with Intent.  Intent
> comes from the underlying "I", and we are born with it before
> memories of this life begin to form.  It could also be analogized
> with Will, but that is sometimes misleading.  I could go on
> about this, but I may lose your interest.

We don't choose our parents or the body we inherit as the center of our 
being in the world.  The essential nature of existence is responsible for 
that.  This doesn't mean we don't have free will, however.  We can choose 
how and where we want to live.  We can train for an occupation or trade of 
our choice.  We can court and marry a life-mate of our choice, and decide on 
the number of children to have.  We can choose what to read, study, think, 
or meditate about.  And, we can view our existence as a nihilist, 
materialist, agnostic, religionist, existentialist, or essentialist, in 
accordance with our individual value orientation.  It seems to me this 
affords us quite a lot of freedom.

[Mark before]
>> 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]
> You are implying that not only our value constructs, but our THOUGHTS, are
> "created for us". You're beginning to sound like Marsha who claims to have
> no self. That's objective determinism to the nth degree! I just can't buy
> it, Mark. If we are not the masters of our own thought, there is no point
> to our existence.

[Mark]
> Again, created for us implies some intellectual thing that is creating,
> is a wave created for it?  Does it create itself?  I do not find Quality
> to be intelligent in the human way.  When one experiences trauma
> and behaves in a way that can be dominated by that trauma, would
> you say that such behavior is created for us?  Or, is such behavior
> a result of events?

If we injure ourselves or contract an illness, Nature usually does a 
marvelous job of healing.  Often we can enhance the healing through medical 
science, if we have the intelligence to do so.  When you say "dominated by 
trauma", I suppose you mean suffering from immobility, vertigo, pain, or 
depression caused by the affirmity.  No, these conditions are not "created 
for us", unless they are part of the healing process, such as fever.

I suspect that people have more ability to control their health than they 
think, and one's belief system can play a part.  For example, I'm told that 
the average American of my age (79) lives on a minimum daily regimen of six 
medical prescriptions, many of which produce unpleasant side-effects. 
Modest exercise and a proper diet can eliminate the need for much of this 
medication.  I started taking a synthetic thyroid pill six years ago on the 
advice of my doctor, mainly to bring my blood tests in line with normal 
values.  There are no untoward affects at the prescribed dosage, and the 
only other pills I take are vitamins, niacin, a prostate supplement, and 
Mega-3 fish oil -- all over-the-counter options.

I would address some of your remaining issues, except that they all seem to 
relate to "creating values" of one kind or another, which is no longer in 
dispute.  (Besides, this is running long.)  If you like, we can continue 
exploring the dynamics based on personal experience, as you had previously 
suggested.

Thanks for the opportunity,
Ham