[MD] Fw: The Dynamics of Value

[118]

Good Evening Ham,

On Mon, Jan 24, 2011 at 9:40 AM, Ham Priday <hampday1 at verizon.net> wrote:
> 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 before]
>>
>> 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.
>
[Ham]
> 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".

[Mark]
Yes, we are somewhat in agreement here.  The differences may lie in
where the physical ends, and the non-physical begins.  There must be,
however, some interaction between the physical and the psyche.  Of
course, the physicists would look for interchanging particles as they
propose for forces.  However, the connection under discussion may be
unmeasurable directly.  Like gravity, we can only see its effects.
So, I agree with you in terms of invisible to microscopes or
spectrophotometers.

If indeed there is a psyche, the question would be how does it control
the brain, and what is it without the brain.  It is quite possible, as
I have proposed, that such control is somewhat subtle.  It may be that
those that think they can control their thoughts are somewhat
delusional.  Such would imply thoughts controlling thoughts, or some
muscle in the brain which is controlling the thoughts, from the
materialistic point of view.  Or some remote function of the psyche
which switches the right neurons on and off.  It is difficult to see
how something separate from the brain can control it.  I suppose we
could say we control our hearts and kidneys too, but such control is
difficult to find, since it implies an "I" that is not material.

>
> 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.

[Mark]
By my point of view, I assume the word realization means creation.  We
create our own symmetry, because that is the way we are, symmetrical.
So our creation is a mirror of what is.  Our sense of beauty is part
of a much larger beauty which we objectify in a human way, harness it
if you will.

[Ham
 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 ...

[Mark]
I am trying to grasp this projection into otherness.  I can almost
fathom it, but it has not congealed yet.  I am a slow learner.
>
>
[Ham]
> 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.

[Mark]
I do not see this non-physcial aspect of the intellect.  The intellect
can diminish after frontal lobotomy, severe trauma, or in diseased
states such as Alzheimer's.  This would imply to me that the intellect
is physical.  What does not seem to be physical is our personal
awareness of such things.  We may not be able to think and remember
things as well in dementia, but we are still aware that it is us that
feels the effects of dementia (or whatever we call it when we are in
that stage).  There were times in my misspent youth that I was
completely out of my mind due to certain chemicals used to try to
understand consciousness.  But I never lost site of the fact that it
was I that was out of his mind.  Therefore, the "I" is something
separate from intellect or memory or brain function.  These are
functions that the "I" is aware of.
>
[SNIP]
>
[Ham]
> 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.

Hmmm.  I think psychiatrists are much more delusional than I am.
Imagine thinking that one can understand thinking.  While I may claim
not to be master of my own thoughts, I am master over my attitude
towards them.  In this way, thoughts can be encouraged or dismissed.
Every day can be glorious or depressing depending on ones outlook.
That is the power we have.  In terms of brain activity, most of our
"thoughts" go unnoticed.  It is only those that we focus on that seem
to occupy the present.  However, by sitting back and watching,
multiple thoughts can be seen at the same time, all jumping around.
OK, maybe I should see a shrink...  But seriously, I think the will is
overrated.  However, the subtle interplay between will or intent and
the biological brain can indeed produce some control.  When I decide
to do something, the decision is already made before I intellectualize
it.  The intellect acts as a recorder of such decision, and cannot
take responsibility for it.  It is at the sub intellectual level that
control is accomplished.  Yes, strap me up and take me away..I hear
voices...  I think sanity is also overrated, but you probably already
knew that about me.
>
>
> 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?

[Mark]
I think that we have similar conceptions and just use different ways
to explain them.  I am becoming more fond of your principle of
negation.  Every now and again, I get a little insight into what you
are saying.  But as I said before, I am a slow learner.  In terms of
intellectuality,  I am not sure if you have placed too much emphasis
on it.  I cannot see your facial expressions or hear nuances when you
tell the stories, so I get that impression.  But that may just be the
way I am reading it.  I will cut you some slack perhaps.

All the best,
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
>