Understanding your Self as a Value Detector

There are at least three ideas attributed to religious scripture that are rejected by Essentialists: 1) the notion of a Supreme Being; 2) the doctrine that man is born a sinner; and 3) the characterization of God as a benevolent creator.  It is the last of these myths that will underscore this discussion, because one cannot arrive at an understanding of Essential Value while holding the view that existence is designed to embody absolute goodness.

What we call "goodness", or the platonic summum bonum from which all goodness is theoretically derived, is an inductive construct based on man's subjective discernment of relative or finite value.  To say that something is 'good' usually infers that it is better than something else or, if the term is applied to a moral principle or technique, that it works more effectively than some other approach.  Neither of these judgments can be extended to Essence which is not subject to such comparisons because it has no 'other' as a referent.  Thus, the value of Essence manifested in existence cannot be measured against a standard of pure goodness or pure evil.  Value is interpretive, and man is the "interpreter"; therefore what is good or bad has these qualifications only as attributed by an observing subject.  In a moral or pragmatic sense, goodness is always relative, and to expect the universe to conform to human morality standards is not only wishful thinking but false philosophy.

Only when we understand that value is relative can we appreciate man's role as its interpreter.  And only when we understand the need for autonomy in making value judgments can we begin to see the cosmic purpose of our existential reality.  I have often used James Fletcher Baxter's descriptive term choicemaker  as a euphemism for man's role in the universe.  The ability to make choices above and beyond the instinctual drives of Nature is unique to human beings.  Unlike other animals, man's decisions are not limited to biological necessity or genetic patterns; autonomy affords man the freedom to act independently of biological principles, and human actions represent the values of the individual.  Once you grasp that concept, it can give you a new perspective on the world you live in, as well as the choices you are free to make for yourself and your fellow man.

The truth is that we make value judgments all the time.  Every new experience is accompanied by an assessment of its relative worth or merit to your existence.  Because valuing is a conditioned habit that becomes automatic over a lifetime, you may not be conscious of performing such an appraisal.  But consider what it is that draws your attention to an object or event in the first place.  When you think about it, you'll realize that your interest is sparked in some way by difference.  It may be a new fact that you see printed in a newspaper headline, the sudden rumble of distant thunder signifying an oncoming storm, or perhaps a fly buzzes past your nose, interrupting your concentration.  Immediately your mind is activated, and you experience a chain of feelings related to that incident.

In almost every case, it is a change or difference in your passive environment that awakens your intellect and, with it, your value judgment.  Quite possibly you don't see values playing a part in your awareness of an event such as I've described.  Well, the fact in the headline is worthy of note---good!  --------------    you resolve to go back and read the entire article.  The storm may bring rain--------------   not good! --------------    you get up to close the window.  The fly is an annoyance  ---bad! --------------    you slam it with a fly swatter.  Now, admittedly I've captured your attention with simple examples.  However, if you reflect on any new experience you've encountered, you will see that it involves both intellection and value-sensibility right from the start.  Actually, the whole universe is accessible for observation, although your experience of it will be limited to its finite constituents, one at a time.

But the physical universe   -------------- even if conceived as everything in all of time and space   --------------  is not the whole of metaphysical reality.  Ultimate reality is absolute non-differentiated Essence.  We do not experience Essence directly but actualized as beingness differentiated by nothingness.  We do participate in its value, however, which is the essence of our awareness.  Our participation is that of a mediator between the observable world of beingness and the nothingness that separates us from Essence and divides the objects of our experience.  The experienced universe is non-chaotic, self-sustaining, and common to all of us.  That we all experience it the same way, albeit from different perspectives, demonstrates the universality of the cosmic design.  Despite the fact that conscious awareness is proprietary to the individual self, the field of objective experience is identical for every subject.  This can only mean that the value that is a nothingness (no-thing) to us is accountable for the universal order of physical reality.  In other words, while nothingness is what we don't see, it is both the ground of our existence and the value of Absolute Essence.  But how can nothingness have value, let alone account for everything we are aware of?

Let me suggest an electronic analogy that might be useful here.  In a typical radio receiver, one part of the circuitry is designed to extract the audio signal from the high-frequency (RF) carrier wave on which it is superimposed.  This circuit is called the detector, and its purpose is to convert the carrier wave emanating from the transmitter tower into a pulsing current that, on amplification, will drive a loudspeaker or headphone in your home to produce the sound being broadcast.  How the circuit works is unimportant.  The point to remember is that the detector converts an inaudible wave source into audible sound.  Imagine the RF carrier wave as the value emanating from the source (Essence) that, when detected, converts inexperiencable value into finite being.   By this analogy, Value is the signal broadcast by Essence, and human sensibility is the detector that extracts from it the finite things and their relative values of experience.  The space/time dimensions by which we localize these finite things are superimposed on the original "value signal".

Such a concept is contrary to the ontology of most philosophies in that it makes Value primary to experience.   Indeed, the philosophy of Essentialism asserts that value is interpretive and relative to the contingencies of experiential existence.  But it also states that value is the "shared property" of the subjective self and otherness.  Is there a contradiction here?  Not really, if you understand that value is only a sensory reflection of the omnipresent Essence and not its substance.  To say that Essence is the absolute embodiment of value is not equating Essence with value but, rather, suggesting that Essence represents all value sensibility.  Keep in mind that awareness is an attribute of individual consciousness which is also aware of being.  My point is that value and beingness are contingencies of existential experience, that one cannot exist without the other.  Conversely, Essence is the not-other; it contains neither being nor value, but encompasses all in its sensible Oneness.

This brings us to the ontology of being-in-existence, which for essentialists is founded on the principle that existence is the differentiated appearance of Essence.  The receptor (or detector, if you will) of this appearance is proprietary awareness   -------------- the individual self.  It is the individual who perceives value in a finite thing and assesses its value relative to other things.  From his or her infinitesimal perspective, values range from the extremes of good to bad in human morality, superior to inferior in objective reality, and every intermediate classification accessible to individual sensibility.  In the course of life, man experiences great evils such as murder, torture, pestilence, and death, but also the sublime joys of love, beauty, freedom and generosity which he calls "goodness".  These perceived attributes of nature and human existence have no moral or ethical value in themselves, but are viewed as good or bad only by the participating subject.  Thus, in becoming aware we humans judge all aspects of our diversified reality, and we act in accordance with this judgment.  By choosing our specific value-orientation we construct our life-experience from the building blocks of intellectually interpreted Essence-value.

I am frequently asked what the valuistic  ontology of Essentialism offers for the development of a morality system.   And the reason for my hesitation is not that I don't believe Essentialism supports morality, but that morality is a cultural system which doesn't lend itself to a universal list of do's and don’ts.  The morality of human behavior is an expression of the values held by the constituents of a given society.  Therefore, in order to apply moral values systematically to a social code, one must begin by looking to his or her own values.

An introspective exploration of values reveals that each of us places the highest value on our own proprietary existence.  The fact that "selfishness" is indigenous to man may seem unreasonable or "egotistical" to the casual reader.  But it is a logical conclusion, considering that becoming aware depends on our existence.  If we didn't exist we couldn't be aware, and would therefore not sense value.  So, by any calculus you may care to use, the honest answer is that your personal life has more value than anything else in your proprietary world.

Having said that, it becomes obvious that selfishness is inconsistent with the morality of a society. The founders of the world's religions were aware of this anomaly, and it became the basis for the Ten Commandments and Golden Rule of Judeo-Christianity.  Why do I cite religion as a source of morality?  Because the world's great religions value peace and brotherhood as mandates of the Creator, whereas non-theistic philosophies as a rule consider morality as "what works" as opposed to what is inspired by proprietary value.  David Kelley, who runs a website for atheists called Objective Thought, claims that "religion cannot yield moral principles".  In his essay "The Common Basis of Moral Principles", he says:

Atheism is the only possible avenue for moral principles to exist, but we must not fall into the opposite trap of evolution as the answer to all questions.   So having dispelled these misconceptions, how can we find moral principles?   Moral principles exist because actions have consequences.  This much is obvious.  If we stop taking in nutrition, we will eventually lose energy and die.  This is because we have a metabolism which keeps us alive: it is a biological fact.  Other consequences are more psychological.  If we are hostile to other people, they will tend to reject our presence.  Morality is therefore based on causal laws, scientific or otherwise, which regulate our actions.  Moral principles exist because our decisions have different consequences, which can be anticipated.  Because of this, to deny moral principles is as irrational as denying gravity.  The consequences of malnutrition or hostility is as obvious as the fact that things that go up come back down, and we would call anyone a fool who did not understand either.

The atheistic concept of morality is non-valuistic, and its morality is a pragmatic agenda that fosters personal or social survival in accordance with the laws of nature.  If it works, it's effective, therefore morally good.  This, I think, demonstrates the need for a belief system as the basis of moral behavior.  Belief in a higher truth or reality provides religion with something to aspire to  -------------a valuistic goal.  Believers whose faith is rooted in a benevolent God see this as their transcendental value.  Unfortunately, the faithful are taught to expect such benevolence in the existential world, and in that notion they are deceived.  This is why a valuistic philosophy like Essentialism can be especially meaningful to disenchanted believers and self-professed nihilists alike.

Value-based principles are derived from proprietary sensibility, whether such principles are moralistic, ethical, or esthetic.  This is an anthropocentric world in which the individual is the locus of all differentiation.   As such, man's value choices are infinite.  His life has value: that much is self-evident.  But so do the lives of his fellow creatures, and that would be merely an intellectual precept except for the fact that man is capable of human compassion.  When one understands that all cognizant individuals have a common source in Essence, he will realize that the maxim "do unto others what thou wouldst have them do unto you" is more than a rule of reciprocity intended to keep the peace; it is the very motive of selfishness.

Rather than a sacred commandment etched in stone to be memorized, essential value is the core of your nature.  The law of selfishness is simple: When you harm someone else you harm yourself.  When you deny someone his freedom, you deny your own.  When you control someone's behavior, you deny your own autonomy.   Conversely, when you attend to the need of your fellow man, you enhance the value of your own life.

But if moral systems are essentially selfish, what about "value systems" that affect society, international relations, economic policies, life styles, and all the amenities generally included under the aphorism "pursuit of happiness"?   Again, what benefits you benefits mankind, and the "rule" is to follow your sensibilities.  Now, this may sound simple-minded to a person caught up in the vicissitudes of civilized existence.  Not so.  The problem is not that the morality of essential selfishness won't work; it's that we have to deal with others who do not share this concept.  And therein lies the rub.

Because the human animal is a gregarious creature with some measure of intelligence, each of us is in some capacity a role model for others.  As parents, educators, supervisors, and confidantes, we all have an opportunity to "make a difference" in our own life-experience and, by example, in the community of mankind at large.  Of course no one can expect to make Essentialists of the world community simply by setting an example.  Few major changes in Nature are accomplished in one or two generations.  But the Philosophy of Essence is uniquely compatible with the spiritual tenets of all established religions, as well as the cultural mores of enlightened nations.  If we can become 'true believers' in the religious sense, and encourage others to do the same, we will have started the ball rolling.  Once a group of people identifies itself as Essentialists, and its members demonstrate their common understanding of the philosophy, the movement can take on wings and spread.

For the present, of course, we must confront those who do not share our essentialist view of reality and who believe that man's actions must be regulated by externally imposed laws and societal conventions.  Some will threaten our freedom by misconstruing selfishness as greed and attempting to control our behavior, steal from us, collectivize our society, or seize our homeland.  (Social and polemic issues are the subject of other discussions in this series of Essential Value essays.)

I couldn't resist concluding this initial essay with a 25-hundred-year-old poem by the Chinese philosopher Lao-Tzu which expresses the kind of momentum I envision for moving the community of mankind toward a fuller realization of essential value.  (With apologies to Mr. Bynner, I've exercised "poetic license" by substituting value for what he chose to translate as  'fitness'.)  Although the poem appears elsewhere on this site, its page location is not frequented by viewers and its relevance to this topic will be immediately apparent.

                                                                   -------------- Lao-Tzu, 4th Century B.C.

            

                                                                        (translated by Witter Bynner)