Hey there Ham,

You sound like an existentialist, which I suppose is your intention.
More comments below.

On 5/23/12, Ham Priday <hampday1@veri...> wrote:
> Greetings Joe and Mark --
>
>
> Mark said:
>> Value in evolution could be depicted in the paradigm of survival.
>> In my opinion, Evolution is not the levels, but what creates the
>> levels.  We do not consider the modern version of the horse to BE
>> evolution, because it is static.
>
> Joe had said:
>> I am trying to understand a value in evolution.
>
[Ham]

So am I, Joe.  What evidence do we have that value evolves?  Has the
value of the universe, or man, increased in quality over the
generations?  Is there more value in the world today than existed in
the neolithic period?  I think not.

Mark:
Just stop right here!  Ham, what is your purpose in this existence?
Do you not seek improvement?  Is there not a desire towards something?

We are part of the universe, not separate from it by some "Miracle of
God".  Our intentions are no different from the universes.  The
problem with your stand is that you have objectified that which exists
outside of you to make this a mechanical universe in the same way
Newton did.  Well, Newton's view has come under quite a few questions
with particle physics and what such math suggests.  At that level, not
everything can be determined, and we are made of such stuff as that
level.  We and the photons.  There is no "magical' differentiation"
that we alone are privy to that separates us head and shoulders above
the rest.  We are all made out of the same stuff; there is only
difference in experience.

I often say this, but you have still to grasp it.  "As Above, So
Below".  What this means in the context of this reply, is that our
intentions are no different from the intentions outside of us.  Even
though I am an object from your viewpoint, you are able to extrapolate
that I have a "similar" existence to your.  What is required from your
point of view is to realize that everything has a "similar" existence
to yours.  This is not to say a rock thinks like we do.  What it is
saying is that the fundamental phenomenon underlying such thinking and
existing is the same.  We seek to be better, that is the blessing of
life (be all that you want to be).  This did not come from an
inanimate world, since there is no sudden transformation within the
human experience that separates it from everything else; we are all in
this together.  We are simply and expression of the whole, not some
separate bubble outside of it.  To conceive otherwise suggests that
you are pandering to the world of static quality, and have yet to feel
the big picture, even though you claim to be doing so below.
This whole notion of man in the image of god is getting old.  If we
are somehow fundamentally different, then prove it to me.  And I am
not talking about levels of sophistication.
Evolution as conceived in MoQ, is a presentation of value (or morality
if you will).
>

[Ham]
> Value is man's sense of virtue, worth or excellence.  It is derived from the uncreated Source from which man is separated as a newborn individual, and it is objectified in his experience of a relational universe.  Thus, the amount of value realized by mankind at any time in history is limited to the space/time perception of the human organism.  Unless the value-sensibility of that organism is somehow enhanced in the process of evolution, the value perceived remains unchanged.

Mark:
Yes, indeed, but you do not address the underlying phenomenon of
Value.  What is Value apart from its mechanics (negation or whatever)?
What is the fundamental nature of Value?  Why are we presented with
it instead of all the other possible options?

Yes, the value sensibility of "that organism" is enhanced.  The taste
of wine becomes better the drunker you get.  Liking a symphony is a
learned process.  So why limit this to us simple and ignorant humans?
Why cannot the whole expression of the universe be one of learning
value?  A river cuts a path to the ocean over time because that is an
improvement in value, just like we find the most enjoyable way to work
over time.  At a fundamental level, they are no different.  If the
universe is expanding, it is not doing so incoherently, or else it
would not be expanding at all.  That you would give yourself more
value than the universe as a whole is somewhat arrogant.
>
> Joe goes on to say:
>> The value between defineable and indefinable is negation.
>> Evolution is not negation.  Existence is logically perceived in
>> different formats, DQ/SQ.  I do not want to view DQ as
>> individuality, but rather as common to sentient individuals.
>
Ham
> I agree in principle with this analysis, although the details are somewhat
> murky.
>
> Perceived difference of any kind is a result of negation.  The fact that
> Joe's awareness differs from Mark's is a consequence of the individuation
> that makes Joe a different person (i.e., sensible agent) than Mark.
> Individuation is an attribute of all beings in existence, since Beingness
> itself is negated from Sensibility to create being-aware.  It is this
> primary difference that distinguishes being from nothingness, subjects from
> objects, self from other, static from dynamic, space from time, and the
> definable from the indefinable.  The process of evolution is not negation
> until it is broken down (intellectually) into changed segments or
> differentiated  levels.

Perceived difference is the result of Quality.  That is why we things
express different qualities.  Otherwise we would call them negational
differences.  Why reinvent the English language when it evolved the
way it did for a reason.  Quality is a correlative noun for the
fundamental nature behind differences in qualities.  This is all we
know; the differences in qualities.  Nothingness has qualities, else
wise we would not be able to conceive of it.  Name me one thing that
has no qualities, and I will show you the sentence that you write me
about it to prove that it has qualities.  This is a property of human
existence, to value qualities.  Valuation is a quality as well since
we conceive of it.  We have the static and the dynamic, and this can
be made as complicated as we want.  However, even the terms static and
dynamic can mislead those who are not adept.
>
Ham:
Also, inasmuch as DQ is for all intents and purposes Pirsig's Primary
Source, Joe does not view it as "individualized" but as a common
"property" of sentient individuals.

Mark:
It is a "common property" of everything, just like existence is a
common property of everything.  Existence is not "some thing", it is
an event.  More on DQ below.
>
> Mark says:
>> I believe that Value between what one can define and what one
>> cannot (definable/indefinable) is the same as the value between
>> boundaries and "no boundaries".  The definable is confined and
>> the indefinable is not.  Personal valuation of these two states,
>> depends on how one uses them.
>>
>> As I see it, DQ is not individuality but that from which individuality
>> comes.  Take for example the experience of a roller coaster.  Each
>> ride is an individual experience, but Experience cannot be confined.
>> We can say that Experience is common to us individuals, but
>> individual experiences are not.  One is foundational, the other is
>> ornamental.
>
Ham:
> If DQ is taken to be the Absolute Source (Essence, in my ontology), then it is that from which everything comes.  However, differentiation is not an attribute of the Source per se, but is actuated by a negation of the Source.

Mark:
This means exactly the same thing, creation/negation whatever you want
to call it.  Things are different.

DQ is not an absolute source in the Essence-like way.  It is not a sum
total of all being.  It is more like a pallet of colors that are
mixing in combinations to create colors.  It is like the sum total of
all your knowledge and experience mixing to form coherent thoughts; it
is what thoughts are made of.
>
Ham:
Again, existence is a contingency of being and nothing.  So a thing
does not exist until it is differentiated from nothingness.  Where
does this nothingness come from?  Since Essence is absolute 'IS-ness',
nothingness logically must be negated by Essence.

Mark:
I have no problem with our current existence as differentiation from
nothingness, for that is what existence is, different from the
alternative (and you call this nothingness).  What this means is that
nothingness IS something for a differentiation to occur.  But why does
Essence, as absolute "IS-ness", need to be hidden?  I suppose an
analogy would be with the finite amount of "conserved" matter and
energy in the universe.  Let us say that this is the building block
for all that is continually transformed and undergoing metamorphosis.
How does the hidden Essence correlate with experience?  Does Essence
becomes void of us while we are "out", or are we copies.  I also
suppose that this negation requires no energy, otherwise energy would
not be conserved.  Yes, I am trying to be practical and bring this
ontology down to Earth.

We need look no farther than our garden (not mechanical) to understand
transformation (or negation as you call it), it is DQ in action.  We
do not need to create a hidden aspect to existence.  Everything is
right here, right now, not in some endless well.

Don't get too tied up with human existence, it is a very negative and
futile manner of thinking.
>
Ham
> Thank you, gentlemen, for providing an opportunity to demonstrate negation
> as a fundamental principle.

Mark
Like I said, what you call negation, I call creation (mine with a
British accent).

Thanks for your input, it's always fun.

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