Okay, Mark --
Thanks for reflecting on my comments to your analysis of Value. Before I
submit my own epistemology in return, I think it would be advisable to
address what you've called the "crux of [our] different perspectives." Here
is how you described it:
I can read your sentences above to mean that Value exists,
and we differentiate it. In this way, Value would have to supply
the source for such differentiation. So, to summarize, Value exists
without us, and we differentiate it. Is this correct? ...
The first misconception -- and it's a problem in my discourse with others --
is that Reality is "what exists". I define "existence" as the awareness or
cognizance of phenomena occurring in time and space. Reality, in my
ontology, transcends this precept; that is to say, the Primary Source is not
an 'existent' nor is it 'evolutionary' in space/time. What this
necessitates is replacing the empirical "precept" of created things and
events with a "conception" of the uncreated Source (Essence) as more than
the sum of its parts. It also requires an understanding which challenges
'common sense', at least as converyed by language, namely, the paradox that
Essence is nonexistent. Incidentally, Eckhart in his gnostic wisdom, got
around this paradox by defining the Source (God) as 'IS-ness'.
I raise this issue because when you say "Value exists without us", you
necessarily put Value in the 'essential' category, since without man --
i.e., subjective cognizance -- there is no existence. We can say "Value is
an attribute of Essence" without making Value an existent. (This Value is
One with Essence.) But when we refer to value "existing", we are talking
about differentiated value(s) which are a product of experience and
intellection. In fact, this may be the real "crux" of our differences.
Now, there is a difference between actualizes and creates.
Something in existence can be actualized, something can be
created where it did not exist before. This is an important
distinction, and again points to whether man is the measure of
all things, or whether all things are a measure of man.
I do not comprehend the meaning of "all things are a measure of man"l. As
for existence (existents) being "actualized", rather than "created" as anew,
I accept that distinction and will try to observe it as we explore the
dynamics of valuism.
Concerning the Tao analysis . . .
[Mark]:
The reason I raise this is in response to a question you provided
a little while ago which asked: If I hadn't read ZMM would I still
call this Quality? We all know what Value is, we also all know
about the electron tunneling which occurs in our brains. We also
know everytime our heart is beating where each red blood cells
are going. How can we not know this, it is part of us, can't get
any more personal than that. So when you state "know", are you
referring to a symbolic representation through the intellect, or
are you pointing towards true Knowing? There is a big difference.
The purpose of defining it in Taoist terms is to transfer it from an
internal knowing, to an intellectual knowing. This is merely for the
purposes of transferring awareness.
Mark, I never describe biological functions in terms of "knowing", despite
the fact that my organic being is intimately dependent on them. "Knowing
about" electrons, heartbeats, and geneological developments is a part of our
empirical knowledge, but such collective intelligence is hardly what I would
call "knowing" in the sense of proprietary awareness. This is not just a
matter of whether something is "personal" or not. If I, the Knower, am not
sensibly aware of an event or phenomenon, it cannot be something I have
actualized or relate to; in other words, it has no more value for me than
the trajectory of Jupiter's moons. Am I "pointing to towards true Knowing"?
If the contents of my awareness constitute True Knowing, then I suppose I
am. But I think we have to make this distinction.
OK, so here we have a difference of opinion. I take it that your
assumption is that without our bodies, the subtle differentiations in
value would not exist. I would have to ask, as I have before, where
does this differentiation arise? ...
I need my body and its functions to "be" a cognizant agent. Bio-physical
events, like the gestation of an embryo or the change of seasons, manifest
the cosmic order of existence for which I am not accountable as an
'actualizer'. I did not design or create the universe; I can only realize
the value of this magnificent system as it relates to me. It represents
what I call "essential value". I can learn facts about it, and draw some
conclusions or predictions from what I learn, but apart from such empirical
knowledge, its essence is not proprietary to my awareness.
[SNIP]
[Ham]:
Value is both "pull" and "push". It is our affinity for (attraction to)
the
Absolute Source and our repulsion of that which negates (diminishes or
subverts) it. Thus, we experience a range of values relative to and
representative of our well-being, as determined by our proprietary
value-orientation.
[Mark]:
I am not quite sure I get this, but I like it. The planets circle
around the sun in what can be described as a balance between
attraction towards and centrifugal force away from the sun. There is
a balance there. I like the notion that we are in a balance such as
that. Can you expand on that statement?
Again, what you have described is the essential nature of created existence.
The balance and direction of its forces ensures what some call the
'teleology' or 'intelligent design' of the universe. These principles of
nature have value to us insofar as they suggest "purpose", if not "intent"
on the part of the Creator. But I think it would be unwise to speculate on
the "why" of existence when there is so much to conceptualize regarding
man's role in it. As I wrote in the preface to my online thesis, "If
philosophy is to have any meaning for us, it must encompass an understanding
of the human position - especially with regard to existential Freedom -and
it must be based upon insight that is both credible and vital to the
individual."
Can we agree on the interpretation of Existence vis-a-vis Essence that I've
outlined above? If so, then I'll be more comfortable providing a rationale
that you can critique and hopefully add to. (Of course, this is the stage
at which I managed to discourage John and Tim.) Admittedly, much of what I
have postulated will seem illogical at first reading. The 'enlightenment'
comes when you have grasped the concept in its entirety. The only caveat is
that, while I gratefully accept criticism and logistical correction, I can't
deal with a mind closed to new ideas.
I do admire your tenacity, Mark, and look forward to a productive dialogue.
Essentially yours,
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
