[MD] Fw: The Dynamics of Value

[118]

Hi Ham,

On Tue, Jan 25, 2011 at 2:57 PM, Ham Priday <hampday1 at verizon.net> wrote:
[SNIP]
>
> 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.

[Mark]
You speak a little in riddles, or at least with viewpoints that are
difficult for me to grasp with my feeble mind.  Having been trained as
a scientist, I try to analogize everything to something that I
understand.  Even if such an analogy is only vaguely similar.  I do
understand the non-existentness of the self, at least in terms of what
we consider existent.  However, although we cannot point to it, I am
fully confident that my self exists.  I know that every day.  But yes,
it is existence of another kind.  I also understand from what you say
that it is the act of recognition of something that creates us.  I
would go further that such recognition happens at the molecular level
as well as in the sensory realm.  I think you have tied codependent
arising in quite well.  A horizon does not really exist, but is formed
by the sky touching the earth.  So we are kind of an active horizon.
But it is also the horizon that defines the sky and the earth,
separates them if you will.  In this way I will tie in the notion that
Quality is that which separates.  Perhaps, through some manipulation,
your sense of self would match my sense of Quality.  That would be
interesting.
>
> The overriding principle of my onology is that Essence has no other.
> Existence -- self/other
> realization -- is the other that is not.

[Mark]
At one point I understood you to say that self/other is Essence.  Is
this correct?  Not complete absolute Essence, but Essence.
>
[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]
> 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.

[Mark]
Yes, I get that, even with all the double negatives.  Even if what we
created was not symmetry to some outside observer, we would still call
it symmetry because it is what we are projecting.  So whatever it is,
we consider it to be symmetry.  The mind projects, and then claims to
have found something.  It's kind of like playing catch with oneself,
but imagining that somebody is throwing the ball to you.
>
>> 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.

[Mark]
Yes, perhaps.  Although I have been told that my sense is anything but
common.  It is more that I need to get a picture of it in my head.
The words themselves have no meaning.  I have no idea what the word
real means anymore.  Nothingness sounds pretty real to me, even if it
is pure.  As I said, my "self" is as real as it gets.  Now, atoms,
well they are borderline since I have never seen them.  Although one
time I was playing with a scanning-tunneling microscope and I got
images that I was told were atoms.  That the earth goes around the sun
is something that I have read, and I don't always believe everything I
read, no matter how many people swear it is true.  So reality is kind
of vague to me.  Even my experiences are sometimes unreal.
>
> 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

[Mark]
I back-engineer a lot.  Actually, I use it to copy devices others have
made, and them improve on them for my present company.  I think you
mean starting from a premise and building back from there, kind of
like Descartes did to prove the existence of God.  (The term absolute
viewpoint is a contradictory statement, by the way).  I still get
caught up in why you use the word negate instead of create.  They
would both seem to amount to the same thing.  I do understand,
however, that negation has to be done to something that is already
there.  But otherwise it seems the same.
>
> [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]
Jeez Ham, and all this time I thought you had the problem.  Well, if
it is my problem, it is a wonderful one to have, I wouldn't trade if
for the world!  All kidding aside, I know what you mean, my difficulty
in understanding your premises.  I am glad we are having this
discussion since you are presenting things in a way that I can
understand.  This provides more quality for me.  I do not equate the
cognizant self with the intellect, that is what I have been saying.
The image constructed is a neurological reflection of what is sensed.
That reflection is what we act on.  But, I don't want to get into
that, or we are back to illusions and being somehow separated from
reality.  I would say that our primary function is to appreciate
within Value, not differentiate it.  It is already differentiated for
us.  Such a thing happens through the interaction of the brain with
the environment.  It is a natural event, not one we create.  We get to
witness it.
>
[Mark's opinion of psychiatrists]
>
>> 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.
>
[Ham]
> 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.

[Mark]
Responsibility, that is a good one for a whole post.  The attitude I
take is my responsibility.  Just because something happens outside the
intellect does not make it somehow less part of the body.  If I jump
off a stove because it is hot, that is acting pretty responsibly.  You
do not seem to understand what I am trying to say.  There is the
focussed thoughts that we have throughout the day.  These are
recordings of what is happening beneath them.  We use such things for
communication and tagging for remembering.  How do we remember things
is difficult to say.  Are we a director that forces memories out, or
does it happen below the intellect.  Ever try to remember something on
the tip of your tongue only to have it disappear and then suddenly
appear a little later?  This is not part of what I call the symbolic
intellect.  So maybe I am in bad shape, or maybe you are fooling
yourself in thinking that your will power controls things.  And, by
the way, normal behavior is far from acting on the most rational
conclusion.  You should know that.
>
>
> 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.

[Mark]
Perhaps what you call reasoning is what I would call the symbolic
intellect.  That is, making symbols for things and rearranging them
into a meaningful way that can be communicated.  This is just one
function of the intellect.  Most of what goes on is not in our active
focussed thought.  Life is not so simple.
>

Thanks for the discussion, I learn a lot.

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
>