[MD] Fw: The Dynamics of Value

[Ham Priday]

Dear Mark --

On Tues, Jan 25, 2011 at 1:28 AM, Mark <ununoctiums at g-mail.com> wrote:

> 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.

The 'I' is not only "immaterial", it is non-existent in the objective sense. 
Self-awareness, you see, is the "negate" of Essence.  Awareness (or what I 
call Sensibility) doesn't exist as a self because it is unified in Essence 
in the same way that Value and Potentiality are.  Only the negation of 
Essence can actualize the Self/Other dichotomy which is the origin of 
Difference.
(This is the "co-dependent arising" you have alluded to in previous 
discussions.)  The conscious Self is no more than a sensible agent of 
Essence Value with no essence of its own.  Like the physical otherness it 
experiences, the self is an illusion.  Its "differentiated locus" of 
awareness is provisional and dependent entirely on the Value of Essence.

The overriding principle of my onology is that Essence has no other. 
Existence -- self/other
realization -- is the other that is not.

> 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.

That's a good analogy, Mark.  Except I would say, we create our own 
symmetry, because that's what Value is.  What we "are" and what we 
experience is "Absolute Essence seeing itself" from the perspective of an 
other.  Existence is the valuistic "not-other" of Essence.

> 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.

Nonsense.  You're sinply clinging to the common-sense notion that the 
physical is "real", the self "less real", and Absolute Reality is pure 
nothingness.  That is a perfectly rational precept by empirical standards. 
And, since it's the one we all live by, any other conception seems foolhardy 
and even dangerous -- like losing your grip on reality and falling into a 
precipice.

But once you accept the necessity of a primary source, Ultimate Reality, you 
then have to "back-engineer" your understanding of existential reality from 
an absolute viewpoint.  In other words, you have to ask: If Oneness is the 
Reality, how does the appearance of a multiplistic universe arise from it? 
For me, there is only one solution to this enigma -- difference and 
diversity are the products of negation (i.e., denial) by the ultimate 
Source.  Just as the nuclear physicist splits an atom to release its energy, 
Essence negates its Sensibility to actualize the locus of an apparent world 
that represents its Value from the perspective of an other

[Ham, before]:
> 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-physical 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. ...

Your problem, I think, is trying to equate the cognizant self with 
"intellect".  Of course subjective awareness is not physical.  But neither 
is the image it constructs from experience.  Again, the self is nothing but 
value-sensibility, which is the starting point for experiential reality. 
Essence-Value is a virtual blueprint for all the logic and principles of 
nature, including planetary orbits, intelligent design, biogenetics, and the 
forms of being.  This is all grist for the mill of intellection which comes 
later.  Our primary function as sensible agents is to differentiate Value 
into its various components and experientially construct a physical universe 
that embodies them.  That, of course, includes the biological body with its 
brain and nervous system (as the self-identified physical locus), and all 
the finite existents that comprise its physical environment.

[Mark's psychiatric self-analysis]:
> 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.

[Ham on "intent"]:
> 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"?   ...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.

I think you underestimate your responsibility, and I sincerely hope your 
decision "to do something" is not "made before you intellectualize it."  If 
you believe your behavior is only a response to what Intellect has 
predetermined, you are in worse shape than I had imagined.
Intellect cannot direct you unless you are reasoning something out, which is 
what intellection is.  Normal behavior is to act in accordance with the most 
rational conclusion.  That's a matter of your will or intent.  But it is YOU 
who are doing the intellectualizing.

> 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.

Regarding negation, I'm hopeful that my comments above will make its role in 
my creation theory somewhat clearer.  As far is intellect is concerned, I'd 
just as soon ignore it and use "reasoning" instead.  (I said the same to Bo 
who was its chief proponent here.)  It's not the self, it's not the 'knower" 
or "awareness", and it certainly isn't a derivative of Essence.

Thanks for the opportunity, and enjoy your week,