[MD] Descriptions of Quality

[118]

Hi Ham,

As always it is fun to knock heads with you and I learn a little of
Essentialism each time.  At least you provide good reasons why you
disagree, and don't just resort to "piss off".

>> On Mon, Jul 9, 2012 at 1:55 PM, Ham Priday <hampday1 at verizon.net> wrote:
>>
>>Ham:
> You disappoint me with an apologist defense that I would have expected of
> Ant, Arlo, or DMB.  The MoQ was advanced as a philosophy, Mark; and a
> philosophy that evades "Truths" with ambiguous references instead of
> explaining "how things are" is unlikely to outlive the critics.

Hmmm... So you see this as apologist?  I am not sure what I am
apologizing for.  Yes, MoQ is a philosophy.  It is a philosophy which
puts quality above truth.  If you are saying that a philosophy cannot
work that way, then welcome to MoQ.  It is not your traditional
philosophy, but why should it be.  How far have we got with your
traditional philosophy.  MoQ does explain how things are, that is why
it has the word metaphysics in it.   I could easily say that
"negation" is an ambiguous reference.  I am still waiting (offline)
for you to explain such negation to me in more detail.  So far it is
just a word that means "cast out from" like banishment from the garden
of Eden.  Give me something more to go on there.

>
> It isn't true that I accept nothing of MoQ.  I accept the concept of Value
> (Quality) as fundamental to man's reality.  But Value is not self-sufficient
> or independent of man, and does not account for our existence.  If being
> "one-sided" means that I am biased toward individual valuism, I plead no
> contest.  It's what makes the philosophy of Essence unique and meaningful.

Value is not a cause as in cause-effect.  Why must we consider Where
in order to find meaning?  It is here and it is now. Everything else
is projection.

This need for a "father" is perhaps where you are confused in terms of
MoQ.  We do not create value when we see something.  Value is what we
see.  This is known as the "world of appearances" or Maya.  If you
think that your metaphysics is more advanced than, say, the Upanishad
metaphysics, well then think again.  Your metaphysics is classically
Western.  It requires a creator.  This by chance is uncreated itself.
Why can't Value be uncreated as well?  Why cannot the universe be
uncreated?  Why do you play favorites?  Perhaps if you drop the need
for a creator and focus instead of what IS, you will arrive at a
Quality Outlook.

That you have sidelined complete biology as mechanical still stupefies
me.  Have you really thought about this in detail?  Brush up on your
basic biology and realize that we are basic biology.  How is our
choice of a meal different from a lion's choice of a meal?

In terms of fundamentality.  Can you name me one thing that does not
have a quality associated with it.  All that we know is the quality of
other things and of ourselves.  As soon as you see or hear something,
it has quality associated with it.  In fact it is all quality.  You
cannot point to some fundamental substance behind that quality.  This
is because Man measures all things.  Any measurement is a quality
attribution.  When you see a rose, all you see is the rose's
qualities.  Whether or not you ascribe value to that rose is up to
you.  But this does not mean that the rose is without value, it just
means that you do not see it.  Education of certain things trains one
how to see value.  What was once a bunch of noise, is now an opera.
>

> If everything were exceptional, relative value would be meaningless.  And
> relative value is all that we can experience.  Man is exceptional by any
> measure you can come up with -- rationally, historically, cognitively,
> morally, cuoturally, esthetically, innovationally, productively,
> emotionally, and spiritually.  This gives him the freedom and autonomy to
> rule the world, ponder its mysteries, and choose the future course of
> civilization.

Well, Ham, let me ask you this.  Is everything exceptional in Absolute
Essence?  Perhaps we are currently living in your Absolute Essence.
And why not.  What reasons do you have to believe that this is not
Absolute Essence right now?

Yes, Man is exceptional as far as man is concerned.  Do you think a
bee cares how exceptional man thinks he is?  As far as a bee is
concerned, we are just part of a mechanical universe that such bee has
to deal with.  Exceptionality is simply a point of view.  At least man
has the ability to extrapolate to a more universal point of view.  Man
has the ability to see value in everything.  Man has the ability to
raise the world to the same importance he gives himself.  Don't you
think the form of elevation would create a certain degree of harmony?

How is man's pondering any different (fundamentally) from a
hummingbirds pondering of a flower?  Yes, it is more complex, but the
same basic set of instructions is going on in the head.  Our heads
just tend to be more redundant in their connections which leave room
for lots of circular connections.  Usually these circular connections
get us in trouble.  They can be the cause for much suffering.  Why
does man commit suicide if he is so exceptional?  Or are only some men
exceptional?

Man is so exceptional that he creates massive armies and kills other
men for no good reason except some pondering of ideologies.  Man's
brain has way too much time on its hands, and it devotes this energy
to many negative things.  This brain is in need of so much
stimulation, that man becomes a frenzied beast and dies of heart
attacks, for no good reason.  This brain is out of control and does
not know what to do with itself.
>

> Like you, I am very much a participant of this world.  I do not consider
> empirical existence the only realty, however.  The "rules" of nature are not
> mine but are embued in the Master Design which we sense valuistically.
> Value, sensibility, being, and the design are all derived from the uncreated
> Source.  Real arrogance is to dismiss this truth and pretend that we are
> here by some accident of nature and must yield to the vicissitudes of fate
> or, what is even worse, an indefinable force that moves us indefinably
> toward an indefinable betterness.

We are not here by some accident in nature, unless you consider
everything we do to be an accident.  What we do is no different from
what everything else does.  Free will is not just a human thing.  That
would just not make sense.  A lioness is free to figure out the best
strategy to jump a gazzelle. She gets better with this through
education.

A possible difference between Quality and Essentialism is that in the
latter one is always returning to the source.  In the former one is
the source.  We are the big bang.  It is one continual unfolding event
where we all play our part.  Every move you make (I'll be watching
you) provides a new direction to everything.  Of course, everything
else is doing the same thing.

Betterness is, of course a valuation.  Perhaps it is overly optimistic
to you, since nothing changes according to Essentialism.  Haven't
things changed in your lifetime.  Why is all this new negation coming
from Essence, as represented by the new others we negate?  If it is a
Master Design, is it not conceivable to consider this Master Design as
one which has direction?  If it has direction why not be positive?
Your choice of course, whatever gives you the most value.
>
>> I like the word Essence.  Quality is Essence.  It just has
>> a higher descriptive quality than simply saying Essence.
>> But, what's in a word anyway.  Why don't you just call it
>> Quality if it is all the same to you?  It would still be your
>> Essence.  Trust me.
>
>
> What's in a word, indeed?  A primary source is an essential premise for
> ultimate reality.  Essentiality defines the non-descriptive nature of
> reality.  Plus, it identifies that which precedes all created entities.
> Quality does not meet any of these criteria.  So why not call it Essence?
> You can't get any more fundamental than that.  Trust me.

Yes, Quality meets all those criteria.  All I was suggesting that you
add a little pizzazz to your Essence.
>
All the best,
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