[MD] The hard question.

[Ham Priday]

Hey, Mark --

On 5/23/12, 4:36PM, Mark Smith "118" <ununoctiums at gmail.com> wrote:

> You sound like an existentialist, which I suppose is your intention.

Essentialism is diametrically opposed to existentialism, as you should know. 
Why would it be my intention to sound like an existentialist?   Those are 
the folks, remember, who claim that Essence "emerges" from Existence . . . 
which seems to be what YOU are now preaching!

[Ham, previously]:
> What evidence do we have that value evolves?  Has the
> value of the universe, or man, increased in quality over the
> generations?  Is there more value in the world today than
> existed in the neolithic period?  I think not.

[Mark]:
> Just stop right here!  Ham, what is your purpose in this existence?
> Do you not seek improvement?  Is there not a desire towards
> something?
>
> We are part of the universe, not separate from it by some
> "Miracle of God".  Our intentions are no different from the
> universe's.  The problem with your stand is that you have
> objectified that which exists outside of you to make this a
> mechanical universe in the same way Newton did.  Well,
> Newton's view has come under quite a few questions with
> particle physics and what such math suggests.  At that level,
> not everything can be determined, and we are made of such
> stuff as that level.  We and the photons.  There is no "magical'
> differentiation" that we alone are privy to that separates us
> head and shoulders above the rest.  We are all made out of
> the same stuff; there is only difference in experience.

Your "reality" sounds like existentialism to me, Mark.  It is you who 
proposes the "mechanical universe".  Whether photon or man, it's 'beingness' 
all the way.  No creator, no source; just the same old existential "stuff" 
struggling to survive the chaos.
That's not my ontology, and you know it.

> I often say this, but you have still to grasp it.  "As Above, So
> Below".  What this means in the context of this reply, is that our
> intentions are no different from the intentions outside of us.  Even
> though I am an object from your viewpoint, you are able to
> extrapolate that I have a "similar" existence to you.  What is
> required from your point of view is to realize that everything
> has a "similar" existence to yours.  This is not to say a rock
> thinks like we do.  What it is saying is that the fundamental
> phenomenon underlying such thinking and existing is the same.
> We seek to be better, that is the blessing of life (be all that you
> want to be).  This did not come from an inanimate world,
> since there is no sudden transformation within the human experience
> that separates it from everything else; we are all in this together.

If "seeking to be better" is your idea of a moral universe, count me out.  I 
seek the perfection of Absolute Oneness, not a finite quality that evolves 
to betterness.  I can't experience it, and certainly can't attain it.  But 
it is the source of all that I value in existence which connects me with 
Essence.

> We are simply [an] expression of the whole, not some separate
> bubble outside of it.  To conceive otherwise suggests that you are
> pandering to the world of static quality, and have yet to feel
> the big picture, even though you claim to be doing so below.
> This whole notion of man in the image of god is getting old.  If we
> are somehow fundamentally different, then prove it to me.
> And I am not talking about levels of sophistication.  Evolution
> as conceived in MoQ, is a presentation of value (or morality
> if you will).

I don't "pander to static quality" (whatever that's supposed to mean), nor 
am I content to be merely "an expression of the whole".  That, for me, would 
be a robotic existence. Life has more meaning than being shuffled about in 
the wind of an evolving universe.  Yes, we are fundamentally different in 
that we are rational creatures with the sensibility to discriminate among a 
wide range of values and choose our actions.  Of course I can't "prove" this 
to you any more than I can prove to Marsha that she is a proprietary self.

> Yes, indeed, but you do not address the underlying phenomenon
> of Value.  What is Value apart from its mechanics (negation or
> whatever)?  What is the fundamental nature of Value?  Why are we
> presented with it instead of all the other possible options?

What are the "other possible options"?  I addressed the derivation and 
essence of value and how it underlies our experience in my last post,  You 
just weren't listening, Mark, probably because you were too busy trying to 
seduce me with existential analogies that have nothing to do with 
metaphysics.

> Why cannot the whole expression of the universe be one of learning
> value?  A river cuts a path to the ocean over time because that is an
> improvement in value, just like we find the most enjoyable way to
> work over time.  At a fundamental level, they are no different.  If the
> universe is expanding, it is not doing so incoherently, or else it
> would not be expanding at all.  That you would give yourself more
> value than the universe as a whole is somewhat arrogant.

We do not "learn" value as something to expand our knowledge.  We sense it, 
feel it, and are enraptured by it.  Whose value is improved by a river's 
path to the ocean?
What is "coherent" about a universe that expands because it has no other 
choice?  Who says I give myself value?  Certainly not me.

For your benefit, let me repeat here what I said about value.  (Are you 
listening, Mark?)

[Ham]:
> Value is man's sense of virtue, worth or excellence.  It is derived
> from the uncreated Source from which man is separated as a
> newborn individual, and it is objectified in his experience of a
> relational universe.  Thus, the amount of value realized by mankind
> at any time in history is limited to the space/time perception of the
> human organism.  Unless the value-sensibility of that organism is
> somehow enhanced in the process of evolution, the value perceived
> remains unchanged.

[Mark]:
> DQ is not an absolute source in the Essence-like way.  It is not a
> sum total of all being.  It is more like a pallet of colors that are
> mixing in combinations to create colors.  It is like the sum total of
> all your knowledge and experience mixing to form coherent thoughts;
> it is what thoughts are made of.

I'm disappointed that you would revert to MoQ terminology in order to refute 
Essence.  The "mixed pallet" concept is an existential analogy: it alludes 
to existents rather than to ultimate reality which knows no difference. 
That's precisely why I reject the term "dynamic" as descriptive of Essence. 
Difference and transition are attributes of experiential existence, not the 
unconditional source.  And Value (if that is your referent to DQ) is not 
"what thoughts are made of".  Cognitive reasoning is the work of a brain 
attempting to make sense of experience.
:
> I have no problem with our current existence as differentiation
> from nothingness, for that is what existence is, different from the
> alternative (and you call this nothingness).  What this means is
> that nothingness IS something for a differentiation to occur.
> But why does Essence, as absolute "IS-ness", need to be hidden?
> I suppose an analogy would be with the finite amount of
> "conserved" matter and energy in the universe.  Let us say that
> this is the building block for all that is continually transformed
> and undergoing metamorphosis.

Existence is differentiation BY nothingness, Mark. It's a contingency of 
being and nothingness, and the "alternative" (or antonym) to nothingness is 
not existence but Essence.

You ask why Essence "needs to be hidden".  I'll give you three reasons:
1)  There is no "other" apart from Essence.  So, the only observer or knower 
of     Essence possible is Essence itself.
2)  We cannot be "autonomous agents" as participants or integral components 
of Essence.
3)  We could not be free agents of value if the nature of our being was 
Essence.

> How does the hidden Essence correlate with experience?

What we experience is the Value of Essence converted to objects and events.

> Does Essence become void of us while we are "out", or are we copies.

Essence is immutable and is not altered by its negational nature.  The 
negated self is a "reduction" of Essence in that its derivative core is 
relational value-sensibility.

> I also suppose that this negation requires no energy, otherwise energy
> would not be conserved.  Yes, I am trying to be practical and bring
> this ontology down to Earth.

NOW who is sounding like Newton?!!  I have no idea whether the conservation 
of energy applies to a non-relational entity.  But if you must think of it 
in such terms,  "cosmic force" is as good as any other.

> We need look no farther than our garden (not mechanical) to
> understand transformation (or negation as you call it), it is DQ
> in action.  We do not need to create a hidden aspect to existence.
> Everything is right here, right now, not in some endless well.

The "endless well" is an evolution to betterness that never achieves its 
objective.

> Don't get too tied up with human existence, it is a very negative
> and futile manner of thinking.

Likewise, don't get too caught up with "hiddenness" or you may lose your 
self in the process.

> Thanks for your input, it's always fun.

Glad you find what I have to say fun.  I would much prefer that you 
considered it seriously rather than as a dialectical game of "who can come 
up with the most rational conclusion?"

Sincerely,
Ham