[MD] Fw: The Dynamics of Value

[Ham Priday]

Hi there, Mark --

On Sat, Jan 22, 2011 at 8:49 AM, Mark <ununoctiums at gmail.com> wrote:

> 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.
[SNIP]
> I am with you concerning personal awareness.  We may differ in our
> 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.

I think you are confusing personal, conscious "intent" with the natural 
order of the phenomenal world.
The laws of Nature that seemingly direct the process of evolution toward 
greater complexity and higher life forms are an intellectual abstraction of 
Essence Value.  This "intelligent" scheme of things is not accountable to 
man's will but reflects the implicit harmony and balance of sensible Value. 
The Pirsigian precept that because the universe "moves to betterness" it 
must be a moral system is a perversion of what naturalists call "teleology" 
and religionists call the "Divine Plan".  In actuality this apparent 
symmetry of cosmic order is what could be called "the quality" of Value.  In 
the mode of human experience Essence Value is converted to "intelligent 
design" so that everything has its place in the cosmic scheme of existence.

> 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. ...

What is "symbolic language", Mark?  Are you referring to logic?  The 
development of the brain and autonomic system is not an "intellectual" 
process, no matter how you analogize it.  We do not design our organic 
bodies or genetic makeup, and their physiological structures are not 
immanent "knowledge".  We have no more awareness of organic formation than 
we do of atomic structure or the chemistry of molecules.  Such second-hand 
knowledge is intellectually derived from empirical observation which, in 
truth, is a reductive analysis of our own value constructs.  We're looking 
at our experienced 'beingness' though microscopes and test tubes that only 
confirm the order we project from value-sensibility.

> When we think in words, we are conforming to a societal level.  Words
> 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. ...
[SNIP]
> 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.

Since I don't know what you mean by "symbolic intellect", I can't make any 
sense out of this analysis.  Intellection is the process of turning 
experience into intelligent information.  Intellect gives us the power to 
comprehend what we learn from experience so that we can deal with the 
relational world in a reasonable and effective way.

> 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.

No wonder you're finding it difficult to explain "the body's intellect"! 
Why try to make such a distinction?  Again, Mark, "the body" does not 
possess intellect; intellect is a function of the mind as it relates to 
synapses of the brain and nervous system.  All intellect is "personal", that 
is, proprietary to the cognizant self.

[Ham, previously]:
> I suspect that people have more ability to control their health than
> they think, and one's belief system can play a part.

[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.

We become obese either from a disease like diabetes or by our inability to 
control our appetite.  The former is a biological disorder, the latter a 
problem of will power.  The brain has nothing to do with it.
Please explain to me what "symbolic intellect" means to you and how you 
think one can use it.

> 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.

I agree that pain can be an indicator of physiological distress as well as 
preventing us from injuring ourselves.  Both protections are "automatic" 
safeguards built into our sensory cells.  I don't see any intellectual 
functioning here, however.

> 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.

Yes, attitude is important to one's happiness and well-being, just as one's 
philosophical persuasion is a significant factor in determining one's will 
or intent.  .

> 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.

I suspect most of this is our natural propensity, rather than a mandate we 
are obliged to follow.  What are is largely the product of our value 
orientation.  I have a friend who puts acquiring knowledge ahead of any 
other value.  He doesn't even acknowledge "value" in art or music.  It's 
"what's important" to him that counts.  Unfortunately, such orientation is 
more the rule than the exception for the intellectual mindset.

You're forcing me to apply my valuistic theory to human behavior, Mark, 
which is good for me.  I'll have to come up with some of my own examples.

Thanks, and enjoy your weekend,
Ham