[MD] SOM Problem #6523213: Relativity and ...

[118]

Hi Ham,

I tell you, this guava juice does wonders for me.  I gave up alcohol
many years ago since it did not, I only drink on special
"peer-pressured" occassions maybe 3 of 4 times per year.  I like to be
alert and "in the moment" at all times, not sleep walking through
parts of my short life.  But, enough about me and my sordid life.  I
have left the body of the text (first part) in this post in case I
need to refer to it.

On 1/17/12, Ham Priday <hampday1 at verizon.net> wrote:
> Ahoy, Mark --
>
> I don't know what you've been drinking, but it sure perks up your
> creativity!
> Maybe you should consider writing a sequel to Lila's Child -- you might call
> it 'Lucy and Her Co-dependent Relatives'' or, maybe, 'Honey, I Think We've
> Snagged a Reef'.  (Either way, it would certainly sell better than a droll
> book about Essence.)

I don't know.  If you make it into a novel kind of thing, you may get
your message across.  Worked for Huxley.
>
> Seriously, I wanted to comment on your previous post re: Relative.
>
>> OK, by your criteria"objects" is the wrong word to use.
>> What I was trying to say is that multiple concepts can give
>> birth to new concepts.  This is a form of manipulation.
>> I agree that we currently [discussing to?] come to some
>> agreement on some terms, but that we have come to
>> agreement on others.
> [skip]
>> As you say, it is the subject that interprets the input and
>> creates the object from its qualities.  It is this Valuation
>> which separates us from the object.  I think I am addressing
>> the process of negation, not the result.  I am not arguing
>> against an experiential reality in favor of a trancending reality,
>> in this case.  In fact, I believe both exist.
>>
>> In terms of the SO paradigm, let me use an example:  What [is]
>> the Subject or Object in the experience of pain?  Pain is an
>> experience, no different to other experiences.  Once the pain is
>> felt, we can then objectivize it to see what is causing the pain,
>> or study it to see how the pain manifests internally.  But the
>> pain itself is the experience.  When we see something, we
>> experience it first in the same way.  Then we divide it into
>> relational pictures within a subject-object paradigm.
>
> Okay, you're now talking epistemologically, which is the dynamics of value
> sensibility or "how we know what we know".  I concur with most of what
> you've outlined above.  However, some guidelines must be laid down for this
> study if we are to come to any agreement at all.  First, I would say that,
> while knowledge is universal, all experience is proprietary to the
> subjective self.  Some experience (like pain, taste, sight, sound, and
> touch) is generated by internal receptors within the body itself, and is
> called proprioceptive sensation.

Yes, I agree, the body functions to transform or interpret as it were.
 The complete "experience" would include many aspects of this
interpretation including our discussing it here right now.
>
> What we are usually discussing, however, is the experience of "reality"
> which involves our engagement with external phenomena.  The nature of these
> images or appearances is important because it holds the answer as to whether
> we actually "create" physical objects or passively receive sensory data from
> them.  My best guess is that the parameters of existence -- what we call the
> physical laws of energy, force, and mass -- are "pre-coded" (as it were) in
> Essential Value but  become relationally operative in space/time experience,
> the only reality we know.  Discrete objects, their differentiated forms and
> properties, arise in conscious awareness from proprietary sensibility whose
> primary essence is always Value.  Inasmuch as all value is derived from one
> Essence, existential reality conforms to universal (i.e., empirical)
> experience.

I can stick (for now) with the distinction between self and other,
although I am not sure where that line lies unless it is the spiritual
and material.  Remember, I am a biochemist, and the molecules in our
bodies are always changing like the molecules of a hurricane.  But, we
can distinguish between a hurcane and the environment outside of it.

I understand your Essential Value and the pre-coding, and by operative
I assume you mean intellectualy opperative since the the space/time
experience does not need to exist below that (see Eckhart).  I think I
can call your Value, my Quality, and perhaps it arrises from Essence.
In the short outline I put aside for a while (I was daydreaming too
much to stick with it, but it will come before the end of this week,
either here or on your site), it is possible that Quality arrises in
and of itself without the need for a reservior.  However, this may be
a minor distinction.
>
> I could extend this theory in greater detail, but it would be largely
> speculative and probably not worth pursuing at this juncture.

I have no problem with speculative since what we are doing is creating
something.  The more we can support such creation with reason the
better.  This is metaphysics after all.  What we do as humans is
create.  This is no different from the universe at large.
>
> This is a good start, Mark.  It does touch on negation, as you've noted,
> chiefly because nothingness accounts for the "difference" in differentiated
> existence.  I'd like to explore that concept further with you at a more
> appropriate time, say when you've provided sufficient information for me to
> see where it's heading in a metaphysical context.  (This will have to be
> your personal philosophy, since RMP's MoQ stops short of an ultimate
> reality.)

Thanks Ham.  I am trying to use your terminology, so please forgive me
if I get the concepts wrong and please correct me when I do.  I am not
sure if RMP stops short of an ultimate reality.  Perhaps his
presentation is not adequate for you who have been immersed in this
for some time.  You definitely follow a certain style which is more
consistent with other mechanistic metaphysics.
>
> I printed out your reflections on Marsha (below) for my wife to enjoy.  As
> they say in our pop culture, it was a fun read.  Keep 'em coming!

Yeah, too much time on my hands.  I am just trying to stay current
with all this history of mysticism I am reading...Nothing like a
little humor to lighten things up a bit.
>
> Kudoos to a fledgling novelist,

Actually, I am writing a novela (given the trouble I have just writing
a simple outline for you, you can probably tell how this is going).  I
may even incorporate some of my forum stuff since it will be written
in the dense style that I am sometimes accused of; but it will be an
adventure, good v evil, Like Dan Brown (bestseller material(?)!)  My
wife is going to have to check the grammar for me.  I like to think of
myself as a budding Thomas Pynchon (if only I was so lucky), or
perhaps a Dean Koontz.  Imagine... Quality being stalked by an enraged
cop killer...
Cheers,
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
>