Greetings, Platt --
Since you mentioned my name . . . I would say that UNLESS Value can be cognitively abstracted in its pure form, we could not tell any difference between good and bad, right and wrong. Cognitively, any differentiation presupposes a unitary whole -- or in plain English, logically you can' t have many without one. I don't understand why you separate Marsha, me, yourself or anyone else from the universe, as if she, me, you and everyone else isn't an integral product and part of the universe.
Your "plain English" statement is quite correct. Everything comes from one. Diversity is actually a negation or "reduction" of the unitary whole, rather than something "added" to it. That's why, metaphysically speaking, the individual self cannot be a "part" of the whole. That would invalidate the unity principle. We are parts of the universe, of course. But, unlike the universe, Essence is indivisible. Therefore, subjective awareness is no more essential than objective beingness is, and values are relational, like everything else in existence.
You'll recall my definition of the individual subject as the "being-aware" dichotomy. (It's a dichotomy because the contingencies are mutually dependent; one cannot exist without the other.) But Essence is a unitary whole which has no other. The appearance of otherness is created by the negational power of Essence. In my creation hypothesis, I use the analogy of the diameter inscribed in a circle to divide it into two semicircles. That imaginary line is nothingness, and the "creation" of two from one is actually a negation. The principle of negation not only accounts for the separaion of sensibility from being, but it's how we delineate every thing and event in experience. You could say that all otherness is an illusion, since from the perspective of Essence there is no other. (re: Cusa's first principle)
How does value figure into this scheme? Selfness is sensibility divided from Essence. Sensibility is what perceives, knows, feels, and desires for itself, relative to the other. It is the pre-intellectual (non-cognitive) awareness of the other's value, but not its essence. (There's your "pure abstracted" Value, Platt.) But the human individual is a conscious organism, a being-aware, and, as such, its sensibility is mediated by organic receptors and the organizing faculties of the cerebrum. That's why, like everything that exists, value is experienced differentially -- morally, esthetically, qualitatively, etc, -- and within a range from excellent or most desirable to poor or least desirable. It is this differentiation of value which makes free choice and morality possible.
To me the universe not only has value to us, but values itself through us. Indeed there is no difference, only thinking makes it so.
The universe represents our value sensibility to Essence. It is Essence which "values itself through us". Yes, if we stopped thinking there would be no difference. There would also be no value, no experience, no being-in-the-universe for you or me. Please don't get me wrong ... we need the SOM perspective if we are to participate effectively in this relational world. It would be imbecilic to go around shouting "We're deceived -- reality is only an illusion!" At the same time, once we realize this truth, it does not profit us to ignore it.
Cheers and best wishes, 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.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
