[MD] The hard question.

[Ham Priday]

Hi Mark [Marsha quoted]:


On Sat, May 26, 2012, 8:57 PM,  "118" <ununoctiums at gmail.com> wrote;

> 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.
>
> [skipping]:
> ...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.

Complexity is not what I'm about, Mark.  In fact, it's simplicity that wins 
the day for me.

Marsha tossed out a phrase earlier today that, in my opinion, makes up for 
all the inconsistencies and linguistic errors she has been criticized for. 
I suggest that you
give it serious consideration.

[Marsha];
> Oh I don't know, I think one might safely say that a fundamental truth
> of the MoQ is the idea that the world is nothing but value.

"That the world is nothing but Value."  A simple and concise statement, 
indeed, and one that suggests an even more profound ontology than the author 
of MoQ realized.

Value is fundamental (I would say "essential") to the world of appearances 
because it is what you and I construct our objective reality from.  We can 
quibble about just how "real" a static pattern is; but we cannot deny that 
it is our (your and my) apperception of the "otherness" that lies beyond us. 
What makes this perception "real" for us is the fact that it is the sensible 
realization of a self.  Which is another way of saying that proprietary 
(i.e., individualized) Sensibility is also fundamental (essential) to 
existence.

What am I getting at?  Simply that if we reduce all the philosophy we know 
to these basic elements, an ontology emerges that can be expressed as a 
teleological principle:

-- Sensibility is negated from Essence so that its Value can be realized 
autonomously.

Now, I know there will be sarcastic remarks by Arlo, dmb, and others here to 
the effect that this is merely theism in disguised as metaphysics ... that I 
am proposing a self-aggrandizing Being who demands of his creatures that 
they love him and rewards them accordingly ... that we are all here to serve 
God,  etc., etc.

But think about this principle as a working ontology.  A few days ago you 
asked me...
> If the Absolute Oneness is already complete, what are we seeking?
> If we are ejected from this oneness, what is the purpose therein?

Doesn't this ontological principle answer both of those questions?   Isn't 
it conceivable that the Essence from which our reality is derived, being 
complete in its Oneness, is "perfected" by having its value realized 
extrinsically?  Isn't it also logical that the agent of this realization 
should be unbiased and innocent of absolute truth so that he/she may 
objectify value freely in relation to his/her self?

And, lastly Mark, is it not plausible that an agent gifted with such 
value-sensibility is not just another creature on the evolutionary ladder 
but the highest form of cognitive being that an intelligently-designed 
universe can produce?

I hope to get to your previous questions shortly.  Meantime, thanks to 
Marsha, perhaps the ontology I've suggested above will help clear up some of 
the "mystery" that continues to baffle you.

Essentially yours,
Ham