[MD] The hard question.

[118]

Hi Ham,
I hope I did not do you an injustice with my comments.  They are
simply my naive interpretation of what you write.  I would like to
address some of your comments to see if there is a point of harmony in
the two presentations of What Is.

On 6/8/12, Ham Priday <hampday1 at verizon.net> wrote:
>
> On 6/4/12, Ant McWatt <antmcwatt at hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>> I think it would be better to say that value isn't a emotional response
>> but is primarily experienced emotionally - at least for human beings.
>> For a quantum particle, this "value response" will entail something
>> different.
>>
>> Mark comments:
>> A more relevant approach is to not create an artificial distinction
>> between value/experience/emotion, for this creates boundaries
>> where none exist.  In addition, to presume that value is somewhere
>> outside, rather than such that rises within as experience seems
>> to be confusing the subjective with the objective, and dismissing
>> DQ as inadequate.  The notion of a "value response" is not in
>> keeping with MoQ, for value is the response.  One simply cannot
>> explain value as something that lies without.  This is incongruous
>> with Quality.
>
> Also, gentlemen, I don't consider the movements of astral bodies or quantum
> particles to be "value responses".  Physical objects behave according to the
> laws of physics.  Although such laws may have teleological value for humans,
> objects lack the sensory capacity to respond to value, so to call their
> behavior "value-driven" or a "response to value" corrupts the meaning of
> value and demeans the term in my opinion.

Mark comments:
Here I may have to resort to the difference in definition of "value
responses", although hopefully you will see that it is more than that.
 Differentiation between a "value response", and Value itself is
difficult since it requires a strict identification of where that
boundary lies.  It also begs the identification of the a mechanism by
which this conversion occurs.

As you identify it, the boundary lies in the human mechanism through
which Value becomes a response.  As such, I may suggest that this is a
somewhat narrow view of Value since it only tries to identify it as a
human consideration.  Consistent with current views on the evolution
of species, we can impart this value response to other species as
well, in a somewhat similar appreciation as that which is encompassed
by the homo sapien species.  What is required to differentiate man is
a specific soul which is completely different from his fellow species.
 I find it hard to do so.

If indeed human sensory capabilities and redundant reflection
complexity is the only way in which Value can be considered, then by
your definition you are correct.  What I ask, is to consider that the
human sort of value response is simply an example of a more universal
value response.  For the purposes of developing this argument, I will
introduce the concepts of singularity, communication, and movement.  I
will consider these to be a manner for presenting the value response.
For a realization of Value, a singularity of perception is required.
I will contend that this singularity can exist as the human
individual, each cell which makes up the individual, the particles
(and sub-) which make up the cells, as well as the more expansive
individuals of the group, the species, the animal world, the planet,
and the galaxy.  Since the "universe" is everything, this cannot be
considered to be individual in terms of value response for the
subsequent two concepts.

Both movement and communication are required for a value response.
Movement should be somewhat clear, since without any movement
what-so-ever (say everything at zero degrees Kelvin, and below) one
cannot separate one value response from another and the term is
meaningless.  Communication is however paramount to understanding a
value response.  Communication in essence is the adsorption of one
individual, of the properties of another individual.  When we speak to
each other, we are imparting an individual sense of awareness to
another individual which the receiver must recognize in one way or the
other.  Body touch is another example, and so forth.  The method for
communication can be considered simply from the physical point of view
although the spiritual (or non-measureable) can also be addressed
(although I will not at this point).

If we stick by my simplistic definition of communication, we can then
convey the sense of communication to the "inanimate world".  For
example, when a ball strikes a wall and bounces off, what is
communicated to the ball (and also in reverse), is the property of the
wall.  This property is the lack of inertial possibility under these
circumstances.  Therefore such individual (wall) property is
communicated to the ball and the ball recoils following standard
Newtonian principles.  From a more expansive view, the gravitational
force which is imparted by all matter can be said to be communication
between individuals.  The concept of the "graviton" has been employed
as the language for such communication.

Based on the above, I now turn to Value itself as presented in our
material world, and which is the foundation for a value response (if
not the same thing, although this gets complicated since Value cannot
be broken down like a value response is).  The mechanisms for which we
are able to sense the world outside have been proposed in standard
physiology.  The mechanisms by which thought is achieved are under
study but seem to be able to be explained through standard
biochemistry.  We can say that when we see a tree, the light
"communicated" from the tree is adsorbed and converted into our own
individuals system.  I will not go through the chemistry and
neurochemistry here.  However, our understanding is that this is a
physical process.  I will finish by suggesting that such physical
process is fundamentally no different from what happens when a ball
hits a wall.  If this for of explanation is at least understood, then
you can see why we cannot constrict a value response to only the human
variety.
>>
>> Ham Priday continued May 30th:
>> Value-sensibility is identified with a particular human being in the
>> same way that consciousness is the locus of one's awareness.
>> Since sensibility is an 'essent', not an 'existent' like the physical
>> body, it has no empirical location.
>>
>> Ant McWatt comments:
>> That sounds like a important difference with the MOQ.
>> In the MOQ, I would suggest that this value sensibility of yours
>> doesn't exist as biological patterns have a space-time location.
>>
>>> Ant McWatt, earlier:
>>> Yet Ham, you asserted above that "value-sensibility... is an
>>> 'essent', not an 'existent' like the physical body, it has no empirical
>>> location."  We seem to have a move here from no empirical
>>> location to an empirical location.  That doesn't seem to be
>>> ontologically consistent to me and is at least confusing!
>>
>> Mark comments:
>> Ant appears to confusing terminology here.  Ham is using the term
>> relative as "pertaining to", while Ant is using such term to provide
>> comparison, or relative position.  It is not hard to understand what
>> Ham is presenting.  Perhaps this clears up some of the confusion that
>> Ant is experiencing, and with this explanation he can respond more
>> formally than trying to find a logical defect.
>
> This hang-up on space/time location is an unnecessary obstacle to reaching
> some consensus here.  Does consciousness or value have spacial coordinates
> in your view?  Beauty and magnificence have value to us, are identified with
> us, yet are not limited to the objects that represent them in experience.  I
> don't understand why your epistemology depends on physical or biological
> location.

Mark Comments:
So far as I can tell, the coordinates you mention are not required to
initiate a Quality Awareness.  I believe that Ant was simply trying to
use some of the tricks of logic to present your ontology as
contradictory.  Hopefully he understands his mistake.  As I see it,
Consciousness IS Quality, except presented through a different system
of logic.  Since I do not have your book here at work, could you
possibly give me the relationship between Consciousness and Essence?
My first guess would be that consciousness is the process of negation,
which as far as I can tell exists separate from (the almost) Absolute
Essence.
>
> Mark's interpretation makes more sense to me:
>> As I see it, Ham argues that sensibility gives rise to other,
>> while Ant seems to argue that value sensibility is a biological
>> function.  The question should be, which one is a better
>> descriptor of one's awareness.  This can then be proposed
>> in standard philosophical fashion.  For indeed, the response
>> of value is what creates the biological pattern.  It comes first
>> and cannot be denigrated to the level of SQ.
>
> Incidentally, the notion of "levels" itself suggests relational difference
> or contrariety which is not intrinsic to Essence, nor would I expect it to
> apply to DQ.  This is why I find the idea of DQ moving to betterness
> problematic, for it suggests that the source of existence is a variable
> rather than absolute.

Mark comments:
The levels are a systems approach to describing the reality which is
termed SQ.  It is simply a convenient manner in which to express SQ in
more than simply an acronym and as such is a deconstructionist method.
 These "levels" do not need to be understood in order to arrive at a
Quality Awareness, and are simply rhetorical techniques to help on
along the way.  If you do not agree with the levels, it does not mean
that you disagree with the intention of MoQ as a whole (remember, I am
speaking of intention).

Any ultimate source is by definition absolute.  However to undersand
MoQ, a description of such "source" is not necessary, nor perhaps
relevent.  Having said that we can consider Quality to be the
uncreated source.  I know this may not make much sense to you, but I
have written about this concept to you in other emails.
>
>>> Ham Priday continued May 30th:
>>> ...Value is relative to the observer, to the space/time
>>> perspective of the individual subject.
>>> That means what is valued -- whether it is morality, aesthetics,
>>> or truth -- will differ from one culture or society to another.
>>>
>>> Ant McWatt comments:
>>> I think this statement confirms my charge of cultural relativism
>>> which makes Essentialism redundant in this modern world.
>
> The modern world, like the ancient world which preceded it, is a relational
> system, and human beings relate to each other in the same fashion.  That the
> source of this system - whether you call it God, Quality, or Essence - is
> posited as unconditional or non-relative does not make it a redundant or
> invalid concept.  On the contrary, the ontology of a pluralistic, relational
> universe is strengthened by an absolute source as its fundamental
> principle.

Mark comments:
I also tried to explain to Ant how he was misconstruing with his
comment of cultural relativism.  Perhaps he has a better understanding
now of your presentation.  While Essentialism has an interesting
rhetorical twist to it, I do not see it as contrary to MoQ except in
the details (where the devil lies).

I find it indeed quite nice to look out on the world and consider what
I sense to be small views of the Absolute Source.  It is the viewing
process itself which I elaborate on.  For, that viewing process is the
sum total of it for me.  This I term Value.
>
> I appreciate your thoughtful comments, gentlemen, as well as the opportunity
> to put the philosophy of Essence into proper perspective as it relates to
> Value.  I also hope these comments will help to resolve some of our
> differences.

As always, I appreciate your insight,
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
>