[MD] The Dynamics of Value

[John Carl]

Ham the non-understanding,

I never quite understood that cultural twist on the Cogito which some find
> so clever.
> John, I think you exaggerate the influence of the social community.  Other
> individuals can only verbally confirm what you yourself know or experience.
> Their confirmation may be reassuring, but truth doesn't necessarily reside
> in the majority viewpoint.


John:

If I exaggerate the social dependency of all meaning, it is to make the
point that you seem to lack in your exaggeration of the independence of the
individual.

But by all mean, allow me to make clear to you the problem I see with the
cogito - "I" think, implies a pre-determined self, whereas the only possible
self that can be demonstrated is the self which arises in contrast to the
other.  I am me, because I'm so plainly not you, not an elephant, not a
tree.  My being arises only in contrast and thus my being is socially
derived.  Furthermore, since these others are defined by our culture and
society, the "I" which seems so obviously primary to you, is actually
socially and culturally derived.  If there were no other, then "I" would not
be possible.  It is in this plain and obviously simple to understand  way,
that all individualism is socially derived.

Good metaphysics consists in examining one's assumptive presumptions.




John prev:


>
>  Right.  But whence come the values they "share"?  The values
>> come before the meetings and can only arise through the interaction
>> of the individual with their environment.  THEN consensus is
>> sought in meetings and adjustments are made.
>>
>
>
Ham:


> You say the values "come before" the interaction, yet "arise" afterwards.



John:

It is a bit tricky, I admit.  But we are talking about value on differing
levels, is all.  The values which are seemingly proprietary and individual,
are actually values created by social input in relation to real experience.
And the values which are social - those agreed to in community quorum, are
simply the codifications and external agreements of the outworking of these
- laws and contracts pertaining to the necessary interactions of social
beings - which all humans intrinsically are.

Ham:


> This seems to imply that values are "out there" somewhere, pre-formed and
> waiting to be picked up, shared or adopted by the crowd.  That is not my
> understanding of value dynamics.  To reiterate my position...
>
> Firstly, value sensibility is proprietary to the self.  Epistemologically,
> Value is the desire or attraction of the self for the otherness from which
> it is estranged.  This sensibility is intrinsic and primary to the self or
> psyche and is not a result of experience or intellecton.
>
>
John:

You postulate an impossibility.  How can there be a self with no
experience?  I'd reserve "intellection" for a very narrow kind of abstract
thinking, but thinking in general must be present in some form for any kind
of realization of self, or why don't we view rocks and water as having a
sense of self?  They evince no choice, therefore they demonstrate no self.

Ham:


> Secondly, desire seeks 'desiderata' for its satisfaction.  Since otherness
> is sensed as pure Essence-Value, we create our own desiderata through the
> experience of being.  By differentiating essential Value into aesthetic,
> moral, and intellectual precepts, we turn sensory experience into the finite
> objects and phenomena that comprise our being-in-the-world.  This process is
> what I call the actualization of experiential reality.  It is how we bring
> Value into the world as representative beingness.
>
>

John:

All this is to me, as I said, "Like a circle in a spiral, like a wheel
within a wheel, never ending or beginning, on an ever spinning reel."

However, I have a need to make order out of my existence.  I need to see a
purposive beginning and end and thus I desire to craft meaningful philosophy
so that I can orient myself properly toward existence.  You seem to be
avoiding that with your spinning wheels of confusion.  The process you call
the "actualization of experiential reality" is in fact, the exact opposite.
It's a denial of experience as primary.  Where you claim to "bring Value
into the world" you actually remove it by making your own self primary.
It's called solipsism my friend, and it gets you nowhere, an "ever spinning
reel".

Ham:


> Lastly, inasmuch as all humans sense Essence-Value, the parameters of our
> world -- space, time, relation, and the laws of nature -- are universal.
> Only the perspective differs from one individual to another.  The
> prioritization of differentiated value is unique for each individual, which
> is what individualizes experiential reality and makes the universe
> "qualitatively" different for each value agent.  (I've hypothesized that
> ultimately, it is our identification with a unique and distinct 'Value
> Complement' that closes the gap of nothingness and affirms our essential
> Oneness.)
>
>
John:

Completely wrong, Ham.  Space, time and relation are about as "universal"
the Roberts Rules of Order.  They are conventions which come in handy and
evolve through a social experience.  This is no radical insight, it's common
enough knowledge evident even to the empirical scientist.

Ham:

I cannot quarrel with your conclusions, except to point out that emotional
> reactions observed in animal behavior are not necessarily value-related or
> the result of aesthetic, moral or intellectual discrimination.
>
>
John:

I'd argue this point strenuously, based upon the odd distinction you make
(how could "emotional reactions" be anything BUT value-related, hmmmm?)  but
since you say "not necessarily", at this time, all I'll do is point out that
such a judgment cuts both ways my friend.


John prev:

If you are arguing that the search for Essence is futile, then I'd agree.
>> There is no Essence, only relations - or as my friend Royce calls them
>> "interpretations" or as my friend Wallace terms them "entanglements
>> between", or as my friend Pirsig puts it, "Quality".
>>
>
>
Ham:


> This sounds very much like Mark's concept of differentiation which, as I've
> argued to him, cannot create without a primary source.  Difference,
> relations, interpretations, and entanglements all allude to an objective
> referent and are meaningless in its absence.  You may as well try to
> describe the cutting up or apportioning of nothingness.
>
>

John:

Which is EXACTLY what you are doing with your "essence", except you rename
it using obfuscatory verbiage in your "round and round".   You don't want to
say anything can come from nothing, so you claim it comes from something
called Essence, which arises from what?  Nothing!

Ham, Ham. Nice try, but no enchilada.

Ham:

I don't derive much insight from the conflict of "entanglements", if that's
> what you mean, and I'm not at all sure that "holding our discriminations
> lightly" is a commendable admonition.


John:

I can concieve of no other way to avoid reification.

Ham:


> Value prioritization calls for more, not less, discrimination in our
> experience.


John:

Clever use of the  ambiguity in "discrimination", but really.  Do you think
quality in word and thought is improved by ever smaller slices of the pie?
We have a word for that tendency and it's "reductionism".  The slices isn't
more valuable by being smaller, its more valuable for being better (more
conducive to understanding).

Ham:

 In music and the arts, for example, the more discriminating the observer or
> listener is, the greater his appreciation of its value.  I would submit that
> this rule applies to the life-experience as well.
>
>
John:

Ah, the appreciation of the discriminating critic.  An intellectually
hollow joy, if you ask me.  But to each his own.

Take care,

John