[MD] The other side of Value

[Ham Priday]

Hi Mark and Ron --


Mark, you asked what might be a rhetorical question on Friday, June 3, which 
I neglected to address; so I'll do it now:

Mark:
> Nothingness is that which divides.  Where is that which divides
> good and evil?  Can you point to it?  Does it exist?  This is where
> Ron has difficulty.  He is trying to create a dualist world with
> divisions.  However, he cannot himself point to that which divides.
> If the divider does not exist, we are left with a monist world,
> no matter how many opposites we can imagine.

My answer is that the value-sensible Self -- the measure of all things --  
divides good and evil.  If the Absolute Essence is "perfect", as I suggested 
to Ron, then morality is a relational concept that does not apply to the 
"Source side" of Value.  Only when Value is differentiated by a preferential 
agent, as in existence, do the issues of virtue vs. vice, beauty vs. 
grossness, excellence vs. mediocrity, justice vs. injustice, and all other 
contradictions appear.

The sensible agent views all things from the perspective of Nothingness. 
This gives him a reference point (or index) against which all value can be 
measured.  As a result of this unique position relative to the Absolute 
Source, the universe actualized by the agent is not "moral" but instead 
amanifests all manner of contrariety and opposition.  It is the value agent 
himself who sorts out the good from the bad in the life process.

I would also conjecture that the universality of man's morality system 
demonstrates that mankind is generally in accord with what is good in his 
relational world.  If this were not true, there would have been no moral 
foundation on which to establish a civilized human culture.

Observe that morality is relative because MAN is relative.  If man had 
access to absolute Truth, there would be no need to parse goodness and evil, 
since he would have no reason or incentive to depart from the known path. 
Without autonomy or the freedom of choice,  man's existence would be 
meaningless.

Contrast this with the morality of the MoQ in which Quality is the active 
agent of a moral universe, while man need only track its evolutionary 
progress to "betterness".  Where is  "choice" in such a euphemistic 
paradigm?  How can man be free when the course is already set for him?  And 
how can he be expected to know what is good when knowledge of the Truth is 
denied him?

Now I'll repeat a question to you both that I asked Ron in my post of 6/5:
Doesn't this suggest a purposeful role for each of us?

I shall be most interested in hearing your reactions to this moral concept.

Thanks, gentlemen,
Ham