[MD] Fw: The Dynamics of Value

[Ham Priday]

Hey, John--

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

Don't tantalize me with thoughts of California weather -- one of the few 
assets that your bankrupt state can still claim.  As you are well aware, the 
East Coast is in the midst of a deep freeze.

[Ham, previously]:
> 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.

The need for a primary source has nothing to do with the dependency of my 
'I' or its way of seeing.  Things don't come into being by themselves.  The 
first postulate of metaphysics is 'ex nihilo nihil fit'.  Nothing comes from 
nothingness.  No matter how infinitely you regress this universe, or any 
others that may be presumed to have originated before it, simple logic tells 
you there must be a creative source (or 'first cause', if you are a 
causalist.).

> 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.

John, Absolute Essence is as "all-inclusive and universal" as any entity 
conceivable.  And it certainly doesn't depend on the existence of an 
analytical self.

> Ham:
>
>> I've done my best to persuade Mark and others that Quality [Value]
>> cannot be 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 is 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.

Is basing metaphysical fundamentals on betterness your idea of an 
"all-inclusive and universal" approach?  You assume that "betterness" 
(Quality) is universal.  But how do you know that my realization of 
betterness is the same as yours?  I enjoy listening to classical music and 
smoking cigars.  (Do you?)  I'll vote next year for a conservative president 
who can most effectively reduce the size of government.  (Will you?)  I 
value these things because they mean "betterness" for me, not necessarily 
for you.  Value is relative to the individual self, so its realization is a 
subjective phenomenon.  That's why the valuing agent is individuated and 
divided from the Source.

> 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.

I have, and I'm still wondering.  Mark explained your "dependency' syndrome 
as follows:

[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 Sartre said appealed to me.  Since I don't understand
> it, such quality has not been created yet (for me).

I don't assume, as you apparently do, that the dependence of my existence on 
an impregnated mother and a relational world in any way infers that 
existence is dependent on a creator.  I don't even believe cause-and-effect 
is a valid metaphysical principle.  But I do believe the rejection of a 
primary source is illogical and nihilistic.

> 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.

I totally agree with this conclusion.  "Interest", "desire", "attraction", 
and "fulfillment" all relate us to an otherness defined by our value 
realization.  The illusion is that this other (the beingness we actualize) 
is reality, whereas the true Reality is the source of our realization.

Stay warm while you can, John.  It has been known to snow in California, 
too.

Ham