[MD] Fw: The Dynamics of Value

[Ham Priday]

Good morning, Mark --

[Ham in response to SNIP]
> I think you are confusing personal, conscious "intent" with the
> natural order of the phenomenal world. ...

[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. ...
> Besides the time factor, how is the orbit of a planet around a sun
> any different from our circular logic.

Perhaps I should have said "conflating", which is a favorite term here for 
mixing up referents.
That human beings are inextractable from the physical world is true by 
definition.  But what you call "conscious intent", along with the emotions, 
intelligence and precepts of awareness, are properties
of the subjective 'psyche' or mind.  They're not objectively quantifiable 
and you won't find them with microscopes or confirm them by spectral 
analysis.  The brain and nervous system are the objectivized "instruments" 
we assign to these mental functions, but the psyche is not organic in 
nature.  Conscious
sensibility (awareness) is proprietary to the self.   It is not part of 
physical beingness or "the natural order of the world".

> 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.

You have that right, Mark.  We have the ability to discern and appreciate 
"intelligence" because it is an aspect of our value-sensibility.  So is our 
realization of symmetry, beauty, and intelligent design.  All of these 
qualitative attributes (and their antonyms) are projected onto the otherness 
we objectify as our existential reality.  The language ("symbolic 
intellect"?)  we've invented to describe and communicate them is our way of 
affirming this empirical knowledge as "universal", that is, shared and held 
in common by all.  This affords us a consistent and reliable universe in 
which to interact cooperatively and modify for our purposes.  As you say ...

> Language is the use of symbols to transfer intellectual awareness
> between individuals. ...
> 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.
[SNIP]
> 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.

Okay so far.

[Ham]:
> 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.

The brain is part of the biological organism that is our physical body.  The 
intellect is not.  Autonomic responses "to the environment", such as jumping 
off a hot stove or raising a foot that has stepped on a thumbtack, are 
protective mechanisms built into the nervous system to trigger a response 
automatically, without intellectual involvement.  Like the muscles that beat 
the heart, or a twitching frog's leg, such reactions will occur even in an 
unconscious body.

[Ham]:
>> I suspect that people have more ability to control their health
>> than they think, and one's belief system can play a part.
>
> We become obese either from a disease like diabetes or by our
> [lack of] will power. The brain has nothing to do with 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.

Will (conscious intent) is not biological; it IS the power to suppress the 
biological.  I don't know where you get the idea that "the brain traps 
thoughts and allows such thoughts to control the choices of the body."  And 
what do you mean by "infatuation with body concept is a brain thing"?  If 
you are not the master of your own thoughts, you might want to consult a 
psychiatrist.  I think he would advise you that suicidal thoughts generally 
indicate manic depression, not a brain run amok from the patient's will.

> 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.

Inasmuch as intellect is not "awareness" per se, I would rephrase that as 
"Most of our awareness is not intellectual."   Thus far we've covered 
thoughts and concepts, emotional feelings, will and intent, love and desire, 
and esthetic appreciation.  Do you think I have placed too much emphasis on 
intellectuality?

Cheers, and take care, Mark..
Ham