[MD] Quality and the Higgs Field: An Analogy

[118]

Hi Ham,

On Mon, Jan 31, 2011 at 3:26 PM, Ham Priday <hampday1 at verizon.net> wrote:
> 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.

[Mark]
I will first address this paragraph first.  Yes, what you call
differentiator, I call sensor.  Of course we all interpret Value in
our own way.  This is not to say that Value does not exist outside of
us.  It must, we cannot create it.
>
[Ham]
> We'll look at how you defend this position arfter addressing your question
> to me:.
>
[Mark before]
>> 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.
>
[Ham]
> 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"

[Mark]
You seem to be defining what I would call Quality.  Yes, Quality
precedes our intellectual awareness of it.  Quality also make up our
intellectual awareness.  We are not estranged from Quality as some
would suggest.  We are part and parcel.  Excellence is one expression
of Quality, but there are many many more.  We sense Quality and are
then driven by it to make choices.  Such choices are between physical
objects or actions.  We do not create Value by making a choice.

For something to be relational, it must compare two (or more) things.
Without the differentiation of such things there would be no Quality.
Something of high quality cannot exist without something of lower
quality.  It is this difference that we sense, not the actual objects.
 For purposes of discussion we allude to the physical things
themselves, but this is merely to connect it to the physical world.
This is a Yin Yang approach.

I am not sure why you would call forth something such as Otherness
when it is not necessary.  Why should we need to appropriate it, if it
is already there.  I understand that there is being and not being.
That is a function of the physical body.  We sense what our body
allows us to.  I suppose if you mean being without body is Otherness,
then I get your point.  Still, it is creation, not negation.
>
[Mark before]
>> 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.
>
[Ham]
> 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.

[Mark]
Quality is what creates relativity, it is not relative.  It underlies
such relativity. Yes, we do not "see" the separation of height, but we
sense it.  This is an example of our sensing of Quality.  I would say
that my take on the intellectual precept would be just the opposite of
yours, that is seeing the steps.  The non-intellectual precept would
be intuiting the quality behind the height difference.
>
> 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.

[Mark]
It would seem you are differentiating between a quantum reality, and
an analogue one.  If a quantum brain is sensing a quantum reality,
perhaps that makes it analogue.  I am not sure what you are referring
to in terms of virtual reality.  If we are indeed Avatars, then this
is all virtual reality.  To use your analogy, stopping the film at
each frame would be intellectualizing the movie, not experiencing it.
>

[Mark before]
>> 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? ...
>
[Ham]
> 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.

[Mark]
My point is that Man can only create value by discerning differences
between things.  It is such differences that provide value.  In this
way, it is what creates these differences that creates value.  I call
that creator, Quality, because that is what it is.  We appreciate the
separation of things, we appreciate Quality.
>
>> 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

[Mark]
I am talking about the quality or value of apples.  We could say that
when we taste an apple we value the change in taste within our mouths.
 So such a thing as eating an apple provides a sense of Quality.  The
space is created by absence of taste followed by presence of taste.
What is it that creates that difference?  I would call that Quality.
>

[Mark before]
>> 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. ...
>
[Ham]
> 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.

[Mark]
Well, by my perspective I do not think man could create such a thing.
What would he start with?  Where would he get the idea from?  Yes,
value-sensibility is innate to us, where do you think it comes from?
As above, so below.  What happens within our bodies is happening in
the cosmos outside.  We are a human embodiment of that happening; a
wonderful embodiment at that.
>
> [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. ...
>
[Ham]
> 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.

[Mark]
I introduce Quality as 'that which lies between and creates" to play
with a unifying metaphysics, perhaps for the same reason you introduce
Absolute Essence.  Again, what is it that makes things relative?  What
would you call that action?  I suppose you would say that we do.  But,
they are different (or relative) without us even being around.  Well,
you would need a guitar player, perhaps, but we could train a monkey
to do that, and then leave.  Differences exist whether or not we are
here.
>
[Mark before]
>> 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.
>
[Ham]
> 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.)

[Mark]
Yes, you are correct, I misspoke by using my terminology.  I was using
your concept of separation from the absolute.  If we could feel a
value difference between 1 and 2, then yes, they would be separated by
Quality.  And, when we sense value in such a case, then Quality would
separate subjects from objects.  A bird in the hand is worth two in
the bush.  That is a value judgment, it is created by quality.  And
yes, right from wrong is separated by Quality.  If two things are
exactly right in the same way, then there would be no separation.
>
[Ham]
> 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

[Mark]
Yes, I understand your point of view.  I do not hold man in such high
esteem as creating quality or value.  But, I know that I am in a
minority there.  It works for me, better than having to create Value
every day; I can just be in its presence.

Qualitatively yours,
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
>