[MD] Fw: The Dynamics of Value

[118]

Hi Ham,

I need to snip some old stuff out, but this will only disadvantage
those who start reading this discussion in the middle.

On Sat, Jan 22, 2011 at 11:43 AM, Ham Priday <hampday1 at verizon.net> wrote:
>
[SNIP]
>
[Ham in response to SNIP]
> 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.

[Mark]
I am not sure if confusion is the proper word.  I am trying to relate
personal conscious intent with the natural order of the world.  I find
this to be instructive since we are a part of such a world.  It would
seem that to separate us out as something apart from such a thing is
not logical.  What we are made up of is the natural world, we are one
apparition of it.  This is why I state "as above, so below".  There is
really no place we can separate ourselves from everything else.
Perhaps it is somewhat self-centered to even try to do so.  Besides
the time factor, how is the orbit of a planet around a sun any
different from our circular logic.

I fully understand teleology.  You will find that all of language is
teleological.  It all references itself at some point.  One word is
alway defined by another word, and then back again.  This is because
such language is a creation and cannot stand on anything.  The phrase
Divine Plan is teleology to the max.  Our concept of intelligent
design is based on what we think of as intelligent which is also self
referential.  It is intelligent because we do it, there is no other
reason.  What humans do is intelligent, therefore intelligence is
human.  Any argument of teleology simply states a fact, and we can
thrive in teleology, look at all the books which have been written.

Everything has its place in the cosmic scheme because everything is in
the cosmic scheme.  If it wasn't, it wouldn't have its place.
>
[SNIP]
>
[Ham in response to SNIP]
> 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.

[Mark]
I suppose the phrase symbolic language is redundant.  Language it the
use of symbols to transfer intellectual awareness between individuals.

My point is that we do have awareness of organic formation.  How could
we not, it is what we are?  Such awareness has not been shoved up into
the intellect and manipulated for sharing with others.  I am making a
difference between our being aware of things simply because they are
us, and being intellectually aware of things through symbolic
manipulation.  We can be aware of love (for example) but find it
ineffible.  Just because we cannot describe things does not mean that
we are not aware of them.  However, interestingly, we have placed so
much emphasis on the intellectual awareness that we forget that we
already know all of these things, just not intellectually.  The
intellect manages to separate itself from the world using symbols, and
then actually believes that such symbols are reality in themselves.
My concept of a tree is not a tree, never will be.  It is important
not to confuse knowledge with knowing.  One is symbolic, the other is
not.
>
[Ham]
> 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.

[Mark]
Symbolic intellect is that stuff we do with our brains to communicate.
 It is only a small part of our experience here.  While it is useful
for communication of ideas, it does not encompass much of our
awareness.
>
[Ham]
>
> 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.

[Mark]
How is it that the brain is different from the rest of the body?  Why
do you ascribe something such as intellect just to the brain?  The gut
has got plenty of nerves that interact in just the same way.  The body
responds to the environment, that is intellect.  If you want to call
intellect only that which we use for communication, then I can go by
that rule.  So perhaps instead of intellect, I will use awareness.
The heart is perfectly aware just as the brain is.
>
> [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.
>
[Ham]
>
> 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.

[Mark]
Yes, I suppose it is useful to differentiate a biological and a mental
disorder.  It is difficult to know where will power surpasses the
biological.  But such a thing is possible, this would imply a will
which has no basis in biology.  Such a will is not material.  My
example of the brain inducing illnesses is well documented.  The brain
traps thoughts and allows such thoughts to control the choices of the
body.  Any infatuation with body concept is a brain thing.  Something
like diabetes can be either genetically linked or environmentally
linked, or a mixture of both, and it is useful in terms of treatment
to understand the source.  If there is such a thing as will power
which has no biological origin, it would be interesting to speculate
on how this thing interacts with the physical body.   What I have been
terming symbolic intellect are thoughts.  Thoughts can often destroy
the body, a good example is suicide.
>
Anyway, I seem to be a bit incoherent today.  Let me leave you with
this last summary statement.

We are aware of much much more than what our intellect is aware of.
Basing all awareness on intellectual thought is like reducing a
computer to an abacus.  Let's not place too much emphasis on
intellectual thoughts as the sum total of awareness or much missed.

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
>