Earth to Ham, On Wed, Aug 24, 2011 at 12:06 PM, Ham Priday <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hey, Mark -- > > [Ham, previously]: >> >> At least we concur that there is a free agent which we can call >> the Self. What I'm saying is that without a conscious subject >> (self) no value is realized, hence free will is meaningless. ... > > [Mark]: >> >> Yes, we do concur there. Those that do not have not really >> thought it out, imo. I would qualify your statement above to say >> that value is interpreted by the Self. This does not mean that >> value does not exist outside of the Self for certainly others >> experience value as well. In fact value can be had by all, >> it is freely available. > > Value is interpreted intellectually by the brain to conform experience to > the parameters of space/time existence. This interpretation includes > cognizance of the causal and relational principles (logistical design) of > the universe, as well as the dynamics involved in the process of evolution. > I'm not sure what "value exists outside the Self" is supposed to imply. The > entire universe experienced by the Self is a construct of Value, and the > Self is its sensible agent and differentiator.
We could say that value conforms, I personally do not think so. If anything, we conform to Value. But, yes, the universe as "Interpreted" by the brain is a physical construct. That is, it involves physical properties and motion within the brain. The brain in turn is interpreted by the atoms which make it up, and so on. Self, not the brain, is an aware agent. The rest is all meat and atoms. > > [Ham, revising his previous comment]: >> >> The empirical data for anything in the experienced universe are >> derived from Essential Value. When we differentiate value by >> experiencing it, we construct the objects that represent it. >> Experiential reality is proprietary to each self as is the >> differentiated value realized from experience. OK, I do not see the revisions since I do not see the original. Yes, the brain differentiates empirically, the Self sees value non-empirically. One man's treasure is another man's trash, nothing empirical about it. > > [Mark]: >> >> This seems like absolute subjectivism, which I do not care much for. >> I know you have a different sense of this, which I am trying to >> intuit, but so far I still believe that trees exist whether or not man >> is present. I simply cannot grant that level of importance to man. >> So, I would again qualify your statement to say Man experiences those >> trees because they are there, not the other way around. ... > > No, it's not absolute subjectivism or solipsism. But it is subjective to > the extent that selfness is subjective. The parameters and dynamics of > trees, rocks, animals, people, and the solar system are intrinsic (I used > the word "imbued" before) in Essential Value. When we differentiate pure > Value to realize it as Beingness, we apply these design parameters to our > interpretation of sensory experience, thereby actualizing the objectve > world. What you question as "that level of importance" is in fact the power > of actualization, which is an intellectual adjunct to the Self's > value-sensibility. We form constructs with the physical part of our existence. For us that creates Being. But these are simply constructs, not the real thing. So we do not actually realize so much as mirror. We cannot mirror something that isn't there (which is the same thing as saying that we cannot create something out of nothing). Any value must already be there unless you want to violate the laws of physics and spirituality. I do like your Pure Value. If I get your meaning, this is Quality. If you mean Actualize something which is already there, then we agree. > >> I think that the Self's perception that experience is singular to each >> man, >> I would agree if you were to say that. > > I'll say that; so we are in agreement. > >> We agree in most things. I still cannot elevate man to the level of >> creator of things. As far as I am concerned, we are in the middle of >> a marvelous rainbow. We cannot create such a thing, it created us. >> However, the entirely personal sense of self is something we do agree >> on. Many years ago when I was in high-school, I developed a >> thought experiment to test if a soul did indeed exist. Here it is (I may >> have already presented it): >> >> Imagine if you will that we are so advanced in science that we can >> create an exact replica of ourselves. With this conjectured ability >> we are seated in a chair facing a blank wall in a small cubicle, and >> made unconscious. The engineer then sets the buttons and performs the >> scans and does whatever it takes to create an exact copy of us in an >> identical cubicle who is also asleep. With the touch of a button, he >> wakes both of us up. Our eyes open and we see a blank white wall. >> Now we hear the engineer say "turn around and look out of the open end >> of the cubicle". We turn around and look. There are two possible >> outcomes to this turning and looking. >> 1. We see through two pairs of eyes, and therefore have double vision >> since both of us are looking at different things. >> 2. We only see through one pair of eyes, because the double (which is >> exact in every-way) is a different person. >> >> If you choose 1, you are a materialist >> If you choose 2, you are a spiritualist > > A fascinating experiment, Mark, but what does it prove? I guess it proves > that I'm a "spiritualist" -- not because my double is "a different person", > but because both pairs of eyes are looking at the same thing or a reasonable > facsimile thereof. (But, as I already have a kind of double-vision, I > probably should disqualify myself.) Besides, I'm neither a materialist nor > a spiritualist but an essentialist, which is a different persuasion > altogether. The Essentialist regards materiality as an interpretive product > of value differentiation. This doesn't make matter "less real" than the > Self from the experiential perspective, however. OK, I was trying to divide the world into two kinds of people (heh, heh). > > Toodle-doo, > Ham So long, Mark > 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 > 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
