[MD] The other side of Value

[X Acto]

----- Original Message ----
From: Ham Priday <hampday1 at verizon.net>
To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
Sent: Fri, June 3, 2011 4:02:45 PM
Subject: Re: [MD] The other side of Value

Hi Ron --

Ham said:
> "Limit" is exactly what I'm talking about, Ron. Nothingness is what
> limits experience to Value, and what differentiates essential value into
> the relative entities experienced. Moreover, nothingness (by definition)
> is not an entity, so your suggestion that I'm "pulling a sleight of hand"
> trick by inserting "a second entity" into the equation is ill-founded.

Ron asked:
> Again if Essense is absolute, where can nothingness reside anywhere?
> 
> Essence must necessarily be a dualism per the explanation you use to
> account for value.

Ham:
Number and Difference are the existential equivalents of Essence divided by 
nothingness.  They define finitude as we experience it.  Things and events 
cannot be experienced without the nothingness that divides sensibility from its 
otherness.  Accordingly, I regard existence (the pluralistic world of 
appearances) as derived from the Sensibility/Otherness dichotomy which is 
primary to differentiated experience.

Ron:
What you call nothingness as a limit, fails to explain movement, it does not 
account for the "why"
of experience it does not account for the good. 

Ham:
Now, the question you ask is a logical one: Where is the nothingness that 
divides?  This is a paradox for absolutists like myself, and my answer will not 
fit your standard logical syllogism.  We are dealing here with that which does 
NOT exist -- specifically, 'not-Essence' -- and treating it like an existent.  
Nothingness is a "simulated other" created by the denial (negation) of Essence.  
This is not an "act" on the part of Essence, but a modality of the negational 
source.  (You might compare it with the trail left by a comet or the solar flare 
radiated by the sun.) 

Ron:
I have to stop the dialog here to explain how the term absolute may not be 
accurately applied to any subject
matter which changes or modulates, that which is absolute is whole and complete, 
unmovable and unchangeable. 


Ham:
 The only way it can exist is as a limitation of conscious sensibility. 

Ron:
what explains that limitation of conscious sensibility? not nothigness if the
only way it exists is via the limitation.

Ham:
 Like the gap that separates two halves of a mountain range, nothingness is 
effective by its absence.  Although the negation of nothingnmess does not 
produce a dualism, its net effect is to provide the appearance of otherness.

And while you may still consider my explanation "word trickery", I've devoted a 
lot of thought to this concept, and to date it is the best solution I can come 
up with.  If you have the analytical skill to express this as a logical premise, 
I'll be eternally grateful.

Ron:
You use the word trickery because it is the best the solution you could come up 
with and you are
sticking to it despite the fact you really have not read up on the traditional 
philosophical problems
to begin with before you invested yourself in your thesis so heavily.
The fact is that there is no logical justification for what you propose, logic 
is predicated on
intelligibility. One must string together a consistant chain of meaning to form 
an intelligible
idea. This hurts your rhetoricaly persuasive arguements and which is why they 
fail to garner
adherents to your theory.

Ron:
> That absolute source being "the good "as primary reality, whatever exists
> indeed is a reduction, perceptually, of "the good".  Perception is the limit
> and to limit is to carve meaning from experience. To make that which is
> unintelligible, intelligible is clearly the greatest good.  It accounts for 
>beauty
> in experience and why it is better to be wise than not.

Ham:
Whether Absolute Essence is "the good" or not is a moral question that is 
subject to man's notion of morality.
I prefer to think of Essence as "perfect", since Value comes in all flavors.

Ron:
The explanation I am fond of is: 
The way the one maifests itself as the many is through the limit of value. 
Through the limit
of the good. The act of preference from atomic bonds and forces to intellectual 
freewill.
Nothingness from this point of view is that which is not valued highly or at 
all.
The good, Value, Quality is then both one and many, the eternal act of 
prefference is the one
undefineable source. The good is the most general of explanations of primary 
being.
It means that all of reality is a moral act. All struggle a conflict of 
morals,no evil only
variable types of good in conflict. It gives one cause to reflect and re-examine 
our reasons
for our prejudices, our likes and dislikes and pause to reflect on seeing life 
as what is better
rather than a reactionary response to evil and nothingness.
thnx Ham
;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;