[MD] Fw: The Dynamics of Value

[118]

Hi John, and Ham,

John, I think you are right on about the need for beginnings.  I think
that what we sense inside is a microcosm of what is outside
(macrocosm).  This can also be stated as "as above so below".  Our
intutited senses are part of a much larger picture that we are a part
of.  The Hindus noticed the seasons and probably came up with
reincarnation.  It is interesting that although the cyclic behavior of
nature is so prevalent that in today's world we cannot relate our
existence to such.  It would seem we are getting farther from nature
by believing that.  Of course we cannot remember previous lives, so if
memory is king, then they must not have happened.  However, what is
memory is not king.

So, the way our brains work is the way everything works.  We have had
discussions on this, and as I remember you and I agree, that there is
no way to separate dynamic quality from what is happening in our
brains and forming our conscious thoughts.  There is no mysterious
world that is out there only for the mystics.  It is all mystical.

Ham, I have a comment after your post below:

On Thu, Jan 20, 2011 at 12:26 PM, Ham Priday <hampday1 at verizon.net> wrote:
>
> Greetings John (Mark mentioned) --
>
> Nice to have you join us.
>
> [Ham, previously]:
>> 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.
>
> [John]:
>>
>> I think it could be better said, that choice and quality are functions of
>> each other.  For while I agree with Ham that the "Quality of our reality
>> is
>> the consequence of free choice", I would also point out that the reality
>> of
>> our self is a consequence of Quality.  In order for my self to be, there
>> must be a valued distinction from other.  We've been over this before, but
>> I
>> think it bears reformulation since it seems to keep cropping up again and
>> again.  One idea your dialogue has inspired is this: that perhaps we feel
>> a
>> psychological need to assert a dependency relation, (one thing coming
>> before the other) in what is actually a co-dependency, *because*  of the
>> nature of our own existence arising in a birth - a beginning.  We take our
>> own reality then, and project it "out there".  We realize our own
>> beginning,
>> and thus we postulate the cosmos beginning. I think Mark has been
>> expressing skepticism about some definite cosmic beginning, and
>> I agree with him.
>
[Ham before]
> I don't see how the self can be a consequence of Quality unless Quality is
> the primary source.  I've done my best to persuade Mark and others that
> Quality [Value] cannot by progenitive because it is dependent on
> realization.  The distinction between one self and another, like the
> distinction between different objects is 'nothingness', not Quality.
> Nothingness is the cosmic differentiator, and it is the product of man who
> is a negation of the essential Source.

[Mark]
Well, I had to look up progenitive.  How about this analogy.  Let's
say that Quality is the wind.  As humans we are little wind propellers
that are spun by the wind, which results in some kind of value.
Without Quality, we could not feel any value because our propellers
would not be spinning.  Now this quality is expressed in other ways
besides our personal feelings, thus the levels of Quality.  Each is
the same thing, just a different expression.  So, Quality is
transformed into realization, does that make sense?   We call it
Quality since this is an intellectual discussion (or pseudo at least),
so we use the term Quality.   I am not sure if this agrees with you or
not, since I have misunderstood your position in the past.
>
> Also, I can't imagine how the idea that we have a "psychological need" for
> dependency could have been "inspired" by my discussion with Mark.  In fact,
> man's desire for the value of Being is an expression of the exact opposite.
> We value otherness because we stand apart from it.  We do not want to be
> divided from that which represents permanence and stability.  As Sartre put
> it, "We want the being of the other for ourselves."  This wanting, this
> longing for the Essence from which we are estranged is our emotional sense
> of value.

[Mark]
It was my understanding that John was talking about the need to
include a creator in our analysis of reality or metaphysics was based
on our having been created at birth.  Your use of dependency is a
little more in the metaphysical realm, and would only be of high
quality if what Sarte said appealed to me.  Since I don't understand
it, such quality has not been created yet (for me).  I am aware that
the existential appreciation of our place in the cosmos is one of
estrangement.  This does not necessarily have to be so.  Perhaps Sarte
had a difficult birth or cold parents, who knows.  Gotta love this
psychology voodoo!
>
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
>