[MD] Fw: The Dynamics of Value

[118]

Hi Ham,

On Wed, Jan 19, 2011 at 1:05 AM, Ham Priday <hampday1 at verizon.net> wrote:

>
> 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."

[Mark]
OK, yes, we are in agreement then, I misunderstood.  I will agree that
our interpretation of the value that exists is personal.  So, let's
move on.
>
> 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.

[Mark]
OK, I will not belabor the point.
>
>> 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.

[Mark]
I am with you concerning personal awareness.  We may differ in out
definition of consciousness, since I do not see our human variety as
anything different, except the human variety.  I will agree that human
free will is only human free will.  In my opinion, however, free will
exists at the level of the electron and the sun.  I see myself as part
of a bigger, homogeneous picture in this sense.  Our moral (human)
values are the same as a trees moral values, just a different
expression of such.  They are all based on a universal morality, that
we express, (or tap into if you want).  Because we can communicate in
intricate ways, does not make us apart from the rest, just an
embodiment of such.
>

> 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.

[Mark]
Yes, the linguistic form of intellect is one form of intellect or
intelligence.  It is quite simple and ignorant.  As a human body, we
come to birth already knowing how the body is put together, what is
behind atoms, and how our genetic makeup is formed.  We have to know
that, because it is us.  We do not know such things through the
symbolic language that is formed, because that has to be learned.  Our
hearts know itself, just as the nerves know themselves, just not in
this communicative societal pattern.  When we think in words, we are
conforming to a societal level.  Word are not necessary to be born or
to exist.  Thus the symbolic intellect forms to create a society.  It
has such power, that often we think that we are just our thoughts, and
are effectively dead when we sleep.  We are only dead to society, not
to ourselves.
>
> [Ham before]:

> 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]
Yes, these choices happen through our "instincts" and once made, they
are trasferred to our intellect which is kind of a recording and
holding (memory) device.  Such free will is way beyond our symbolic
intellect, and comes from Intent (or Will if you wish).  We are born
with such Intent and are making choices from the very beginning.
Everything is from its beginning.
>
[SNIP]
>
> 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.

[Mark]
Although I do make a distinction using the societal level, I have a
hard time differentiating the personal intellect from the rest of the
body's intellect.  It is often useful to divide that which is used for
communication (words), from that which does not.  Most of our
intelligence is not in our wordy thoughts.  Most of it is done without
such thoughts, such as the beating of our hearts, or breathing, or the
capture of oxygen by our hemoglobin, and so forth.  There is a little
that is done by the forebrain, but it is minor.
>
> 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.

[Mark]
I would say it differently.  Using their symbolic intellect, people
have the ability to destroy their health much more than control it.
However, as you say, if we decide to have a ruptured appendix removed,
that is an attribute of the symbolic intellect.  Due to our
infatuation with the titillation of the mind, we often forget that
there is another larger aspect of ourselves outside of the brain.
When we lose touch with the rest of our body, we tend to destroy it.
No body wants to be enormously obese, but the brain directs it that
way.
>
> 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.

[Mark]
OK.  In my quest for personal self, I have tried to differentiate
between dynamics of value as it is attributed to that which is caused,
and that which I have some control over.  As I have stated previously,
I do not think there is much control over the thought patterns in the
brain.  Because if there was, it would have to assume something
personal outside the brain that is directing traffic.  A brain cannot
control itself, it would be like a bus driving itself.  So the
question is, where does free will come in?  It seems to me that at a
very subtle level, there is a degree of free will in our attitudes
towards the plethora of differentiation that is going through our
heads (and bodies).  One can see pain as evil.  However, amongst the
lepers, the loss of pain meant that they were loosing a limb.
Therefore, for those infected with leprosy, pain could be seen as
good.  There are of course many examples where an awareness of
something can be "seen" in dramatically different ways.  This I call
the influence of attitude as free will.

Now, let me say that I am not one of these Gurus who claims that
attitude is everything, and we have to think happy to be happy.
However, there are forks in the road of life happening all the time,
on a moment to moment basis if you want, where we have a choice of
attitude.  Some of these choices can be learned through the intellect.
 Many need considerable practice and will or intent is needed in such
cases.  It is this intent which defines us, not the memories, or the
body shape, or the amount of money we have.

So while we cannot create value, we can fine tune our intent with such
value.  For me, this seems to come from a place that cannot
necessarily be defined as physical.  However, it may well be.  So, for
example, when we see a painting we have a choice to like it or not.
However, there is a lot of personal history, or memory, or societal
pressure, also at work.  We have to try to identify our part in that
choice.

OK, so much for the mumbo jumbo.

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
>