[MD] Quality and the Higgs Field: An Analogy

[Ham Priday]

Greetings, Mark --

On Mon, Jan 29, 2011 at 1:56 AM, Mark <ununoctiums at gmail.com> wrote:


> Your view and my view are not all that different.  One difference is,
> however, where does quality arise?  You claim that man is the
> source of value.  I state that man cannot create such a things, only
> interpret it.  My premise is from a different perspective than yours,
> looking at it from the other side.  I appreciate your point of view,
> it puts man in a very high place as the creator of value.  My point
> of view is one of interpretation of value, you could value something
> which I throw away.  Such a difference still does not mean that we
> each create our own value, just its interpretation.  More below.

Yes, I think we are very close to agreement, with two exceptions.  First, 
you have misconstrued what I call "actualized Value".  Man does not "create" 
Value; he is the Value "sensor".  But the real disagreement is this "Quality 
= Differentiator" concept of yours.

We'll look at how you defend this position arfter addressing your question 
to me:.

> My question to you, would be: How does Man create Value where
> there was none before?  Personally, I do not see any place or
> mechanism by which this can be done.  Or, if you are suggesting
> that by some miracle, Man can do such a thing, then I am left in the
> dark.

Value is the affinity of the negated Self for its Absolute Source.  So it 
"precedes" or is prior to experiential awareness.  What you folks call 
Quality (eg, "excellence", "arête" or "betterness") is the individual's 
measure or standard of Value applied to relational things or events.  This 
makes the perception of Value relative to the observing subject.  We 
perceive things valuistically, which means that we actualize things to 
represent our particular value-orientation.  We don't "create" Value, we 
appropriate Value from Otherness to bring Being into reality.  That's what I 
mean by "actualization"

> Quality implies difference.  Everything is separated by quality,
> it is the separation that we sense, not the things themselves.
> What makes a staircase work, is not the steps themselves, but the
> separation in height of the steps, the rise over run.  Each step looks
> the same, but is separated by height.  The steps are not important, it
> is their relative "quality" that gets us upstairs.

Yes, quality is relative, which implies difference.  But it is not 
difference or "separation" that we sense (experience) but the phenomemon 
itself.  We know from our understanding of mechanics that the staircase 
works because it is a system of levels.  But this is an intellectual 
precept.  We don't see the "separations of height"; we see a series of steps 
that comprises what we recognize and identify as a staircase.

Your example is analogous to a motion picture film strip.  When run through 
a projector at the proper speed, we see the photographed objects move as 
they did when the film was shot.  In fact, the magic of motion pictures is 
possible only because we do not see the spaces "between the frames" -- this 
"differentiating nothingness" is hidden from view.  Likewise, in virtual 
reality, we don't perceive the intervals that separate one moment from the 
next; we experience it as an uninterrupted continuum.  Our evolving world is 
a continuous process; the hours, minutes, and microseconds that 
theoretically divide it is an unknown -- as far as we are concerned they 
don't exist.

> Well, let me use the example of apples.  Let us say that there are
> a dozen apples that are entirely identical (by some magic of genetic
> engineering or something).  If you were asked to choose the apple
> of highest quality, could you?  Now, if Man can create Value, why
> can he not do so in this case?  This is because Man can only
> perceive value.
>
> What is it that would make apples different? ...

You know the apples are different because there are 12 of them.  Grab one of 
the apples and it will have more value to you (because it is more 
accessible).  Also, you will probably find variances in the size and weight 
of the apples, which is a quantative measurement of value.  Otherwise, 
unless there is a difference in taste, the apples have equal value to you. 
I'm not sure what the question "why can't man [create value] in this case?" 
is meant to suggest.

> This is the analogy of the Higgs field.  As I have stated previously,
> things do not contain value, they are separated by value (or Quality).
> Therefore, Quality is an active (yes, active) separator.  We appreciate
> that separation in our own personal ways, that is interpretation,
> not creation.

You state a hypothetical premise, and follow it with a QED.  Apples are 
recognized by their characteristic shape, color, and smell (or flavor), not 
by the spaces that separate them

> We cannot create Morality.  How would we create such a thing?
> Do we wake up one day and say we are going to create some
> morality?  We interpret it, it exists outside of us, and being human,
> we interpret it in a human way.  We cannot create the wind by
> feeling it.  It exists outside of us.  The brain is a bunch of nerves,
> not a Value generator. ...

Nothing of value is created overnight.  But, yes, man invented morality as a 
social system whereby individuals could live peacefully and cooperatively 
together under common laws instituted by consensus of the individual 
participants.  Most folks don't think of morality as a  Quality, but it has 
pragmatic value for a collective culture, village or state.  Morality is not 
something out there "blowing in the wind".  It stems from the 
value-sensibility that is innate to all of us.  In actuality it is an 
expression of common sense.

[Ham]:
> What differentates (separates) one thing from another is
> the space or void between them.  For me, this is nothingness.
> We measure linear values with a ruler that separates units of
> length with dividing lines. We use a prism to separate the
> color values of white light. Likewise, the keys of a musical
> instrument separate pitch values of the tonal scale when a
> melody is played.  Thus, the differences that we experience
> valuistically are delineated by nothingness, not by the value
> or quality itself.

[Mark]:
> Again, I would state that what separates them is value or quality.
> Just a different perspective.  What makes one key of a piano sound
> different from another?  It is that which separates them.  Unless you
> hear two notes, there is no difference.  (This is similar to the one
> hand clapping idea.  What is the sound of one hand clapping?
> There is no quality present there. ...

So why introduce it?  Value is relative.  For the musician--especially one 
with absolute pitch--
each note of the scale has a particular value, relative to the others.  Even 
morality is relative to the particular culture or society.  But Value 
doesn't create the differences, individuals do.

> You have stated that what separates us from Essence is
> Nothingness.  Now, Nothingness is kind of a meaningless
> word sometimes.  Isn't Quality a much better separator?
> At least it has substance, we can feel it, it is real.  There is
> no need to have some kind of separation from an imagined
> Absolute.  It is all here, all now.

What do you mean by "better separator"?  Aren't you begging the question? 
For one thing, it's not logical to posit Quality (Value) as a separator. 
Would you say that Quality separates subjects from objects?  Or the number 1 
from the number 2?  Or, for that matter, right from wrong?  (Maybe you 
would.)

Sorry, Mark, but I'll hold to the maxim 'Man is the measure' and that what 
he measures is relative Value.

I've probably exceeded Horse's 10k limit, but it's important for clarifying 
difference--both ours and the MOQs

Cheers,
Ham