[MD] Fw: The Dynamics of Value

[John Carl]

Greetings from Sunny California, Ham.  I hope you are warm where you are.

Ham:

I don't see how the self can be a consequence of Quality unless Quality is
> the primary source.



John:

The key point I'm driving at here and now with you Ham, is your "_I_ don't
see".  You can't see this with *your* "I".  But others can, and do.  This is
because the way we view the world, the metaphysical views we choose, are
functions of our choice, driven by needs which go deeper than mere
intellectual analysis will reveal.  In your above formulation, you need some
sort of "primary source" in order to make sense of things.  I believe you.
But what I'm trying to get at then, is that this need for a primary source,
isn't universally fundamental but a common aspect of an organism which has a
birth, life and death.

But when we analyze things more deeply than from within our own
psychological needs; like when we're analyzing the self as an entity, we
have to drop our "I"-sight view and be a bit more all-inclusive and
universal.

Ham:



> 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.
>
>
John:

Well, that's one way of looking at, but perhaps not the best.  The best way
of looking at it, would be more easily transferrable and universal and
wouldn't need such lengthy persuasive attempts.  The "best" way, would be to
look more deeply at what we mean by "best".  This is the realization that
ultimately we cannot escape that value if fundamental.  For instance, I'd
take your above and ask you about "realization".  What is that?  Isn't that
when you realize something is better?  Why can you not understand then, that
your realization is dependent upon betterness?  You are obviously
intelligent and logical and well-read, and the point is plainly put for
anyone of half a brain to understand, therefore some other explanation needs
to be brought in to understand why you choose to view this as you do, with
your fundamental subject.

Ham:

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.


John:

Well consider my above and get back to me if you still wonder.

Ham:

 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.
>

John:

Distinct "otherness" would hold no interest for us if we had no way of
relating ourselves to it.  We value otherness for it's entanglement and
enlargement of our own being.  But I do believe you (and Sartre) are making
my point eloquently about the nature of our emotional attachments to our
ways of seeing.

Ham:


> However, I do agree (with both of you) that "cosmic beginning" is a
> cause-and-effect precept intellectualized from the facticity of birth and
> death and the temporal mode of experience.  This is why I generally use the
> verb "create" in the present tense.
>
> Interesting points, John.  I'm pleased you appreciate the significance of
> this topic.
>
>
I appreciate your appreciation, and very much agree with you on the
significance of this topic.

Sending rays of hope from a sunnier clime,

John