Hi Mark --
Yes, I can accept your premise to see where it leads.
Some clarification below.
[SNIP]
Defining the undefinable is obviously requesting a truth
about something. I can treat your treatment as an analogy,
and I have no problem with it. The dialogue which makes
up the analogy is what I am after. Finding meaning in such
a thing is the end goal. I believe I have an interpretation of
Eckhart's writings, we can see if it fits yours. I am happy
to begin with your description of existence as awareness,
it seems logical. We have to agree that it is more than
thinking as Descarte's would imply.
I think the difference is the perspective. That is, value as
created by a human, and value as sensed by a human.
I would say that love is something that we can hook into,
not create. Now I don't want to sound like a geriatric hippy,
but this seems to have more validity than a subjective creation.
Difference IS the human perspective of otherness that we call existence. It
is an other because it is not the self but an experiential representation of
Value divided by the self's nothingness. Existence is not "reality" because
the Absolute Source knows no other. Again, Mark, we do NOT create value; we
differentiate it incrementally and objectify it as the things and events of
our existence. Love is an emotional response to what the self interprets as
an object, person, or event of special interest. It is experienced when one
focuses value-sensibility on a specific phenomenon.
[Ham, previously]:
I do not comprehend the meaning of "all things are a measure of man".
As for existence (existents) being "actualized", rather than "created"
anew,
I accept that distinction and will try to observe it as we explore the
dynamics of valuism.
[Mark]:
All things are a measure of man implies that what we percieve
is created for us, not by us. If something has high Quality, we
are tapping into that. This is not to say that we will all respond
to it in the same way. Perhaps it is this personal discrimination
that you are pointing towards. A white-water ride can be
experienced differently by people, this doesn't mean that such
a ride does not exist outside of us.
If experience is a construct of our values, as I maintain, how is what we
perceive "created for us"? The only precept that fits this description are
the form and design of experiential Being, including the universe and the
laws of nature that order it. In this design is the "essential value"
needed to produce a planet suitable for human habitation. I don't care much
for the cavalier "tapping into" connotation for value-sensibility. We are
constantly actualizing our world according to our proprietary sensibility,
whether it is "low-Q" or "high-Q" value. A white-water ride may be a
thrilling experience emotionally, but the process of actualizing it is no
different than actualizing your kitchen table.
[Ham before]:
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. ...
[Mark]:
What I meant is that we Know about electrons without learning
about them. We have to, they are part of us. I am trying to
distinguish between the symbolic knowing, and the underlying
Knowing. I just wanted to clear this up at the beginning. Our
intellectual knowing is learned, our Knowing is inherent. So
when one says that we all know what Quality is, this is inherent
Knowing, and can only be extrapolated into the intellectual
knowing, not created there.
We know about electrons because someone told us. So such knowledge is
non-experiential or "symbolic". Okay, but do we not also intellectualize
everything we experience? If I'm driving my car and it suddenly starts
bumping up and down on the road, I know I must have a flat tire. If the
soup I'm eating tastes flat, I reach for the salt and pepper. That's
intellection, Mark. It goes hand-in-hand with man being the measure of all
things.
What I am trying to ask is when you say "my" what are you
pointing towards? Others seem to use this form of "I" or my,
in a way which while rhetorical, must be addressed when
exploring the nature of things. So, at what point does the
input get translated into the "I"? From my investigations,
this question leads to a sense of Quality which is creative
and not just experienced.
Self-awareness is a given, even before the "input" stage of knowing. It
really didn't require a Descartes to confirm that awareness is proprietary
to the self. For the newborn child, the entire world is that self. It
quickly learns, by relating to its mother and testing its experience, that
the objects of experience are "external". Since all experience is
valuistic, and the sense of quality is proprietary, I don't see where you're
trying to lead me. Yes, experience is "creative" or "effective", as opposed
to "passive", in the sense that it actualizes otherness as objects. Is that
the point you want to make?
[SNIP]
[Ham before]:
Can we agree on the interpretation of Existence vis-a-vis
Essence that I've outlined above? If so, I'll be more
comfortable providing a rationale that you can critique and
hopefully add to.
[Mark]
Yes, no problem. Without trying to muddy up the waters,
Essence could also be seen as Nothingness (as you say),
and a further conceptualization could be what is termed
Emptiness. However, in my opinion, this Buddhist notion
is misinterpreted by Western thought which has to point to
something.
Human experience is "value specific". Ultimate reality is not. However,
emptiness or nothingness cannot be a source of Value; it can only divide or
separate what Value represents to the observer. So, yes I agree that the
Buddhist notion of emptiness (which I believe involves "clearing the mind"
of extraneous thoughts and desires for meditative purposes) has been
misconstrued, or at least misapplied to metaphysics.
As always, I enjoy discussing these things with you.
Same here, Mark. Could I have your inputs on the conversion of Value to
concrete experience, as I seem to lack the proper words to explain it.
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
