[MD] Fw: The Dynamics of Value

[Ham Priday]

Hi Mark --


On Wed, Jan 26, 2011 at 5:24 AM, Mark <ununoctiums at gmail.com> wrote:

> 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.

As a pre-med student with a B.S. in biology-chemistry, I can appreciate your 
efforts to interpret a metaphysical theory objectively.  I try not to 
violate the empirical principles on which scientific conclusions are based. 
These are important for intellectual and pragmatic reasons.  Ontology, 
however, exceeds the bounds of empirical knowledge; otherwise, scientists 
and cosmologists would have provided us with an answer to the riddle of 
existence.  Some would say that we were not "meant to have" this knowledge, 
and it is obvious that we can live out our lives without it.  But the 
philosopher seeks a more fundamental understanding than experience reveals, 
even if the fundamentals challenge the logic of common sense.

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

You have put your finger on a problematic weakness of my exposition.  I've 
defined Essence as "everything that is", which must be true if Essence is 
the Source; yet, it is also true that nothingness is accountable for the 
"difference" which divides and delineates finite existents.  I'll rephrase 
your question this way: If the negated self is not an existent, and the 
absolute Source excludes nothingness, can self/other be regarded as Essence 
(i.e., essential)?

One possible solution is to consider nothingness a "product" of creation. 
If Essence is omnipotent, logically it would possess the power to create 
what it essentially is not.  But this is somewhat contradictory, in that 
Essence is absolute in nature and "knows no other".  Another solution would 
be to posit negated entities (individuated subjects and objects) as 
"illusionary".  In this case, the Absolute Source would literally be 
"creating an illusion", which, although theoretically plausible, loses 
something in the way of integrity as a creditable thesis.  Yet, I don't 
think we can dispense with nothingness as the "illusionary factor" in the 
existential equation.  Currently I am mediating the problem by referring to 
Essence as "negational in nature", but I intend to give this matter 
additional thought.  Meantime, any suggestion you can offer would be greatly 
appreciated.

[Previously]:
> 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.
>
> [Ham]:
> 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.
>
> [Ham]:
> 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.

Of one thing I am certain.  Creation by an absolute Source is 
"exclusionary", whether nothngness is the negated product or the power of a 
negational Source.

[Mark, previously]:
>> 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. ...

Please don't confuse nerve synapses with "intellect", Mark.  The physical 
body and its neuro-sensory apparatus is the objectivized instrument or 
"tool" of intellection.  We actualize ("create") our physical organism in 
the same way that we actualize external objects and events.  They are our 
objective representations of essence-value -- of the Value we differentiate 
psychically and convert to "being".  What we call "mind", "awareness", 
"thinking" or "feeling" are all variations of value-sensibility which is the 
essential core of selfness.

> 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.

"Witness" is too weak a term for human interaction and behavior.  We are all 
equipped to choose our values and act upon them.  The history of 
civilization is testimony to that.  We don't "interact with the brain"; we 
"cause" the brain and utilize it as the source of our comprehension and 
measure of our reality.  Intellect is just one aspect of cognizant thought. 
The fact that we attribute this process to electro-chemical activities in 
the brain is as illusionary as the reality it creates.

[SNIP]

> 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.

I have no doubt that the brain is a storage facility for recalling past 
thoughts and experiences.
But that cerebral function is not consciousness, nor is it the seat of 
selfness.  The physical body with its network of sensory neurons is an 
auxilliary processor for memory and thinking.  Think of it as the computer 
we use for research and comunication.  Self is the operator and locus of 
physical reality.

Essentially speaking,
Ham