[MD] The hard question.

[118]

Peace Ham, this is a philosophical discussion.  If I misinterpret you,
it is my mistake.  However, it is also my nature to point out
inconsistencies in what you present, and try to present my system in
the best way I know how.

My comment on existentialism may have been misplaced, and I am no
scholar on the subject.  Such comment may have been a gut reaction due
to conversations with fellow philosophers who expound what they claim
to be existentialist beliefs.  I am a fan of the writings of Søren
Kierkegaard and do not appreciate the other existentialists (except
Camus, if he is indeed one), as much as perhaps I could.

The context of such comment was within the following confines of my
understanding of existentialism:  As I understand it, existentialism
promotes the concept that the individual and his senses is the primary
source for meaning.  Outside of that the world is meaningless, but
benign.  Accordingly, provision of meaning starts and stops with the
individual, and any notion of meaning outside of that are unfounded.

I do not believe that this is my position, and would prefer to think
of myself as an anti-existentialist.

More remarks below.

On Thu, May 24, 2012 at 11:04 PM, Ham Priday <hampday1 at verizon.net> wrote:
>
> 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!

My mistake.  I thought you were pointing to the trivial pursuits of
man where nothing is gained and there is an indifferent universe.
However, if you feel that there is more to Value than just simply
man's temporary sensitivity to it, then you are not an existentialist.
 I was simply remarking to your comments, but now I understand that
you are pointing towards something beyond man's appreciation of what
is.  This is the same thing I am doing by stating that Value lies
beyond man's value.
>
> [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]:
>> 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.

Well then perhaps I have not explained myself well in the last 50
posts or so.  A photon has the same beingness as man.  This elevates
the photon to the level of man and is not simply some occurrence
without will.  I do not see this as existentialist, for meaning lies
in everything at an equal level.  You complain about me being animist,
this does not sound like existentialism coming from me.  I cannot
envision a system in which a "creator" favors man above all else, I
see no proof of this.  It is the incidental nature of value that does
not quite fit into Essentialism, it seems to me.  You seem to be
taking a leap.

I see man as being essentially similar to all other beingness, each in
their own temporary way.  What we ascribe to man should be ascribed to
all.  We cannot create an imaginary line separating man.  It is a
continual flux of transformation, of water from the same source. I
have had discussions with professed existentialists where a creator
exists; this is simple cause and effect paradigm since certainly all
"this" came from somewhere.

I do not see any struggling to survive chaos, I see that as
evolutionary existentialism, which I complain is an insufficient
paradigm, and explain nothing except to put us at the top of the heap,
under the command of the God of the environment.  As I see it, we ARE
the environment, not separate from it.  This notion of separation
stems from Aristotelian classification which seems to have become our
reality.  By conceptually separating everything into classes, we have
explained nothing, only grouped things by appearance or concept.  This
is the same grouping we perform when creating constellations.  It is
useful but superficial
>
>> 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.

If the Absolute Oneness is already complete, what are we seeking?  If
we are ejected from this oneness, what is the purpose therein?  I have
asked you time and again for a conceptual reason for this ejection
from the Garden of Eden.  Are we all born sinners and need to atone?
It all sounds like some kind of game.  That it could be a game is fine
by me, but at least explain it as such.

If you have no interest in seeking to be better, then I can understand
your dismay at my saying that such "golden rule" is purposeful.  We
are each finite, and our union in this effort forms the spirit of the
universe.  If we seek to be better, then why not everything?  What is
it about man that makes him/her different from all of creation?
>
>> 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.

If you don't know what it means, then you cannot not pander to it.  I
don't pander to f[q09v'[q, and so what?  As far as I can tell by your
negation of the Whole, your ontology claims that you are an expression
(negation) of the whole.  How do you resolve the notion of robotics
there?

Of course life is full of meaning, but such meaning is not exclusive
to us, why should it be?   So far as an ant is concerned, we are
simply a mechanistic force of nature.  Do you think such ant cares or
finds any meaning in the pursuits of man?

I have provided ample reasons why man is no different.  Let me ask you
this:  Why should man be different?  What is the Essentialist paradigm
which explains this?  In Christianity we are the image of God, however
according to Essentialism, everything is an "image" of the Absolute.
Are we the one and only thing that creates value, and everything else
was placed here for our bidding?  All that just doesn't make sense to
me.

What does rationality mean to you?  The brain is a highly redundant
instrument, but it is an amplification of simpler redundant systems
(levels of rationality).  Rationality comes from motion and
communication.  Our nerves communicate, but so do the atoms of a rock,
the cells of a leaf, or the photons of a light beam.  I do not see any
sudden metamorphosis going on where a level of communication changes
everything.  Our rationality is certainly different and we can speak
of levels of complexity, but that is just one of many ways in which to
parse the manner of classification.   Rationality means being able to
make choices.  That we seem to take this to the nth degree does not
make us different, except to make us less certain.  Explain to me how
a river is irrational.  Show me how each water molecule is not making
a choice.  It is subject to the exact same environment as we are.
Don't confuse complexity for different.  Computers have become more
complex, but they are still computers.  They do not suddenly change at
a certain level of complexity, where a computer is fundamentally
different.  A computer is no more artificial intelligence than we are.
 None of it is truly artificial.  Atoms make up our cells make us, and
we make computers.  We cannot separate ourselves as "the
non-artificial" except by classification.  Classifications are
writings on a page.
>
>> 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.

If I use analogies improperly, please point that out.  If there are
rules of metaphysics that I am unaware of do the same.  Any
categorical statement such as yours above does me no good in terms of
my betterment.

In terms of possibilities, Value is a result of something, right?  Do
you not think it possible that in a parallel universe there is another
form of existence where value does not form part of the equation?  My
question was WHY VALUE?  I am not looking for some mechanistic
explanation; I am looking for some philosophy.  If the purpose of
value is to seek what we have been ejected from, this sounds somewhat
"existential" to me.  Where does it all end, is it a hide and seek
game?  What is the purpose of Value? Show me a grand scheme, rather
than the same old thing over and over again.  Could it not be that the
universe is getting better without end?  Could it be that an objective
is to strive, and such striving providing all the meaning we need?
Could it be that by striving we are part of a bigger cause?  If we
have causes, why not the universe.  What we are is not separate from
the universe, but part of it.
>
>> 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.

What I meant, and embelished on in the deleted portion is that value
is not a given parameter outside of our control.  Wouldyou not say
that you derive more value from a symphony once you have learned to
listen to it?  All of life is a process of learning to appreciate
value.  Otherwise, all we are is some bell that rings every time it is
struck.  "Ding Dong, there goes another value through me".

The river analogy was meant to equate the path of a river to our path.
 This means that a river is just as stupendous as we are, not that we
are lower than the low.  The universe has choice in its expansion,
which is my whole point.  This can be stated because we are part of
such universe, and at every moment we provide redirection, in the same
way a river provides redirection.  There is no mechanistic universe,
it is a conscious universe.  Everything has choice, everything makes
up a greater whole which contains the same attributes as that which
makes it up (as above, so below).  Realizing this can result in the
derivation of more value within the universe at every moment of
existence.  It does not seem right to deny value to most everything by
relegating it to an inanimate mechanism.

Mark
> 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.

Yes, I had read this and understood this.  We seem to have crossed
wires here.  Everything is separated from the uncreated Source in the
same way, is it not?  A tree creates value from us as we do from the
tree.  I do not see how this could be a one-way street.

Is it possible that valuation for the very same thing could change?
That what is important is not the value associated with an object, but
the manner of our interaction with it?  The value of a beer is not
always the same.  If value can change through circumstances (say,
pitching a baseball), how does Essentialism explain this?  How does
Essentialism explain that we can change our minds about a specific
valuation?  How is it that we can interact with the same other in
different ways?  Does not man himself have a part to play in this?  Is
this not learning?  In the Ontology of Essentialism, what is the
purpose of learning?  Is it not to get "better"?  Can you not conceive
that everything has a "desire" to get better?  Why only man?

The absolute source provides us free will.  I would assume this is
another negation.  Is there a classification in terms of forms of
negation?

>
> [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.

Ham, I am not refuting Essence, I ask questions to learn.  It does not
have to be one or the other, for such absolute truth would dismiss
many in a religious sort of way.  I am simply explaining DQ for your
edification.  Existents (as you call them) are static quality.  When I
spoke of the pallet it was in terms of an event, not something static.
 That is why I said "a pallet mixing".  There are no individual colors
in this pallet, only the act of mixing.  However, it can be conceived
that DQ interacts with SQ so as to borrow Essents and remix them.  But
DQ is a mixer, and SQ is not.  DQ knows no difference, same as your
absolute source, it is before difference.  We are the conduits through
which difference is made.  This is the progression from the dynamic to
the static.  Everything is such a conduit.  We are expression of
Quality formed through DQ.

I will not bore you with current understandings of cognitive
reasoning, and the web is full of such philosophy.  The brain creates
experience, in doing so it attempts to place itself within a framework
of "placement".  I have termed this proprioception, and have also
taken the liberty to consider it as an additional "sense".  At all
times we know that there is a singular aspect to our existence in
relation to that outside.  Losing this sense of placement, due to
disease, has been documented in the medical literature, and is deadly.
 Mystical experiences can create such a displacement, but remaining
therein without instruction is destructive.  We always need reference
points. Distancing the rest of the universe as incapable of choice (as
it would seem that you are proposing) isolates man from everything
else such that he/she is alone in this universe.  This for me is
existentialism; and is a negative manner of placement.  This sense of
"difference" is a separation from reality in the form of words and
concepts.  We spend more time looking at the map than enjoying the
scenery.  The modern dictate is that everything must be "understood"
and not enjoyed, as if such understanding is the final goal.  We are
not taught to look beyond the words we are presented.
> :
>>
>> 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.

Yes, I am fine with the function of nothingness as a differentiator.
An island is separated from the mainland by water.  Essence is land,
and nothingness is water.  I thought that was what I said about
nothingness as a defined (existent) non-existent.  Is Essence a thing?
>
> 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.

I will have to think about those and refer to your book before I can
say I understand.

>
>> How does the hidden Essence correlate with experience?
>
>
> What we experience is the Value of Essence converted to objects and events.

OK, that sounds like what I thought.  I am not sure what I meant by
that question, maybe it will come to me.
>
>> 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.

Hmmmmm.... OK (?)
>
>> 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.

Well, Newton described a mechanistic universe, I don't think I was
doing that.  We made up this conservation of energy and mass since it
fits well in the math.  I was just curious if you had given it some
thought.
>
>> 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.

Heh, heh.  OK.  But each achievement is an objective.  Finality in
objective signifies a termination of betterness, and a reversion to
the undifferentiated.  I am speaking of the universe as a whole.
There is a lot of effort going into the universe not disapearing as
such.
>
>> 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.

Well perhaps such a result could be nirvana, who knows.
>
>> 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?"
>

Well, what can I say, I am a rational being...
By the way, I am serious, I just have fun being serious.  I believe
what I say and am not trying to score brownie points.  What I like is
a philosophy that has some basis in experience.  Maybe that is the
scientist in me.  What were the clues that you went by to realize that
an absolute essence was key?

Later,
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