[MD] The hard question.

[118]

Hi Ham,
It is a glorious day today with the sun shining.  I am continually
astounded by how everything seems to fit together, and how I can
affect it.  My apologies if I am tiring.  I would not be persistent if
I had any doubts.

On Fri, May 25, 2012 at 10:47 PM, Ham Priday <hampday1 at verizon.net> wrote:
> Mark --
>
Ham>

> I have read Kierkegaard, a very thoughtful philosopher whose existentalism
> is primarily of a Christian nature.  Camus is more a playwright than a
> philosopher, and his views echo those of Sartre.

Mark
It is a shame that you label these thinkers.  That you cannot see
beyond that "Christian" nature of Kierkegaard.  What he writes can be
applied to so much more than the Christian paradigm.  It seems very
short sighted that such would be your final opinion on him, that is
"of a Christian nature".  I don't even have any idea what you mean by
that.  He speaks of levels of existence.  It was he who inspired
Sartre.  If it was "Mere Christianity" then I suppose Sartre would
have written something completely different.

I am also no sure what you mean by more of a playwright.  Are you
saying that Shakespeare was not a philosopher?  Are you saying that
Samuel Beckett, the greek tragedies, Homer, Dante, etc., are not
philosophy?  To realize that they are, requires that they be read as
such.  I would give them another try.  By the way, Camus did not want
to be associated with Sartre, in case you have forgotten.

>
> I don't see Will as an operand in a photon's behavior, unless it's the will
> of the observer.  Particles, liquids and objects move and relate in
> accordance with the laws of Nature which, as you point out, provide a
> consistent framework for existential events.  It is my guess that these
> physical laws are imbued in our sensed Value and  conferred to existents in
> the course of our experience.  In any case, "will" or intent on the part of
> the object is a romantic notion that has no logical justification.

I am not sure what you mean by Will then.  What is it about human Will
that makes it different?  If it is simply complexity then that is
insufficient, in my book, to claim difference at the level that you
are trying to do.  Because complexity does not create a metamorphosis,
it is the same thing, just more complex.

Are you saying that we do not operate through the Laws of Nature?
What then do you call the "laws" by which we operate?  You sound like
the people who claim something is different because it is "man made".
Don't forget, that we come from Nature and what we do is Natural.
However, perhaps you have a different definition of Nature.

Ham, you are an "object" to the photon, just like I am an "object" to
you.  Can you not see that?  How is it that we become something more
than an object to something else?  Again, you may be using the term
object in a different way.

What has no logical justification is the argument that you are making
that man is different.  You need to work on that argument than simply
say that it is true.  It is easy for me to show that man is not
different at a fundamental level.  Just because you and I have the Man
form of Will, does not make it fundamentally different, it simply
makes it Man's will, which by inference says that there are other
kinds of will.
>
>
> So you don't regard man as a special creation with valuistic and
> intellectual capabilities that are unique within the animal kingdom.
> Frankly, I don't know how to overcome this hurdle.  It's like trying to
> explain the function of a prism to a color-blind person.  Do you concede
> that human intelligence is far superior to any other known species?  This
> would at least indicate that man has evolved to a higher level of competence
> than his fellow creatures, (possibly supporting the view that he might have
> a special, if not unique, role in existence).

Ham you are not listening.  Man is special because man is man, and
extra special because I am a man.  A rabbit is also special, and it
does not find man very special.  Each and everything is unique.
Perhaps you are using the term unique in a way that I do not
understand.  What exactly do you mean by unique?  Are we maybe "more
unique"?  What are your criteria for uniqueness?  We live in a human
form, it is difficult to comprehend the uniqueness of everything else,
and very, very easy to conflate all of the rest of existence as
something mechanical.  The rest of existence is simply not human, and
that is all we can say.  We cannot ascribe man as living on the other
side of a curtain.
>
> I have no quarrel with the idea that organically we are all part of the
> evolutionary process, although I don't regard man as equivalent to his
> environment.  However, I do
> see man overcoming the limitations of his biological nature and adapting the
> environment to serve his ever greater inventive needs.  Do you purposely
> disregard man's social and technological progress over the millennia, or do
> you consider such achievements mere happenstance?

Ham, again you are not listening.  I find man to be a wonder!  It
seems that you need man to be exclusive for this to be true.  Why, in
your opinion is it that only if man is exclusive is he wonderful?
Must man stand apart for this to happen?  If man can only be a wonder
by making everything else sub-important, then you are well on your way
to destroying this planet.

You say that man is not equivalent to his environment.  It is up to
you to prove that.  If all you have is complexity, I can show you an
equivalent to everything man does, in the "natural world".  All we can
do is mimic the natural world, we are not gods, we cannot create
something out of nothing, all we have are the tools we are given.  So,
before you once again contend that man is different, please show me
some proof.  Yes, we are men, we see things as man, but that is the
only difference.
>
> [Ham previously]:

>>
>> 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.
>
>
> Absolute Oneness is completed (perfected) by the extrinsic, autonomous
> sensibility to its Value provided by its negated agents.  It is this Value
> which draws us all to Essence and to which we seek to identify ourselves.  I
> view this as a reciprocal bonding between the absolute and relational modes
> of Essence.  The only "sin" is the failure to make this connection for
> ourself or our prevention of another person doing so.  The "end game" (if
> you want to call it that) is redemption of our lost value rather than
> atonement for our sins.

Ham, I have no problem with this, but you need to apply it to
everything for it to be consistent.  You cannot draw an imaginary line
that sets man apart.  Or if you do draw such a line you need to
substantiate it.  My position is that man is not different.  As you
know, one cannot defend the negative, one has to prove the positive.
Give me some criteria of what you find "different" about man, and I
will give it some consideration.
>
> I'm not sure what "better" means in the context of "seeking".  Certainly I
> want to better myself by acquiring knowledge, discovering goodness,
> experiencing joy and contentment, and (hopefully) becoming a wiser person in
> the process.  While these are virtues that I value highly, I can't imagine a
> non-human being, organism, or object seeking the "better itself" in this
> way.  Do you not acknowledge this kind of value-seeking as a distinctly
> human goal?

Better has everything to do with seeking.  The two are inextricably linked.

Have you ever seen a bird build a nest?  Is it not better to lay eggs
in a nest?  Do you not think a bird becomes wiser as it grows?  Dogs
like certain kinds of food more than other types.  Are you saying that
this is not value seeking?  I have no idea what goes through a dog's
head, but that does not mean it does not contemplate.  For what is
contemplation but an excercise of a brain?  Again, I am not saying
that a dog contemplates in a human way, but given the similarity of
brain structure it is probably not that different.  I am assuming, of
course, that you buy into the notion that the structure of the brain
has something to do with value seeking.  If not, then you have lost me
completely.
>
>> 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?
>
>
> The Whole (Absolute Essence) is not negated; it is "negational" in
> potentiality.
> It is the power of negation which creates or actualizes the "otherness" that
> we call existence.  A cognizant agent that can exercise its freedom
> autonomously is not a robot, Mark, and your allusion to "other possible
> options" for ontology has me mystified.  Can you provide an example or two?

I get your first part.
For the other part, of course I cannot give you an example because we
live in a world of Quality.  However, this is simple logic.  You say
that we create value through other.  You therefore separate value out
as something that is created.  If value can be created, it stands to
reason that other things can be created, if the universe was
different.  This is no different from saying that we can create
houses, and we can also create boats.  However, perhaps you are
referring to what man does as something other than creation.
>
>> 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?
>
>
> "Should be" and "ought to be" are dangerous phrases to throw around when you
> don't have access to cosmic truth.  Why assume that an ant has the capacity
> to care about any meaning than its own survival?   On the other hand, why
> reject the idea that amoebas, ants, and monkeys are "stepping stones" in the
> evolution of life forms to their culmination in man?

I assume this because you have not given me any reason to think
otherwise.  What I am saying is that it does not do so in a human way,
but this is simply species difference, not something fundamentally
different.  I have no problem with the "stepping stone" principle in
terms of morphology and behavior.  But what you are saying is that
there is a spiritual change in man.  That monkeys cannot sense value.
How is it possible that you can even be at this place of separation?
It astounds me.  A dog can understand a word in the same way we do,
all that is different is the complexity, nothing else.

If you do not think that an ant cares about its own survival, then I
simply cannot help you understand.
>
> You've posed far too many questions for me to answer in a single posting, so
> I'll get to the rest of them in follow-up messages.
>
> Thanks again for challenging me, Mark.
>
> And enjoy the Memorial Day weekend,
> Ham
>
>
> 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