At 05:37 PM 9/16/2007, you wrote:
>Marsha --
>
> > When Ham references value & quality in the MOQ sense,
> > it's the _manifested_ aspect of their meaning. Manifested in the
> > sense that it the static or at the intersection between the static
> > and dynamic, the experienced. What is ignored is Quality in
> > the unmanifested sense.
>
>You bet'cha value is manifested. What do you consider "unmanifested value"
>to be?
Greetings Ham,
You used the smallcase 'v' in the word value above, which I think
refers to its common usage. Are you ignoring that the MOQ mostly
uses Value and Quality in a special manner? I do not sense that you
accept this. I have noticed this tendency in past. This can make
your statements correct in its usage, but incorrect in relation to
the MOQ. At least that's how I experience it.
You stated that 'value' is manifested. IS? Again, in its most
common usage this may be true. I would think that Quality is
manifested in static patterns of value, and at the point of the
initial intellectual experience. Dynamic Quality is pre-intellectual
and not yet manifested. Somewhere I believe RMP suggested that
Dynamic Quality was in front of the present. At least that's my
understanding.
>[Marsha, previously]:
> > And how could you ever know anything about the totality of
> > human existence when you are so deeply embedded in it yourself?
>
>It seems to me that you have answered your own question, Marsha.
I don't know how I have answered my own question.
>Anthropologists, historians and sociologists talk about "mankind" in the
>collective sense because they study human beings and their social behavior
>objectively, from an evolutionary perspective.
Anthropologists, historians and sociologists talking about "mankind"
doesn't mean they can correctly deduce anything about the total
population. And as far as deducing a purpose, that presupposes cause
& effect.
> But the characterization "totality" doesn't add any weight to what
> man is inherently.
I do not think anything exists inherently, not subjects and not
objects, not me and not you.
> From a metaphysical perspective, a million humans are no more
> significant that a single human.
Is that from 'all' metaphysical perspectives, or 'some' metaphysical
perspectives? I've never read of such a assertion covering all of
metaphysics.
>Life for each of us is objectively the same experience.
I don't know what to say about such a statement accept to ask 'how do
you know?'
>It serves the same purpose, observes the same universe, and begins
>and ends in the same way.
I've already mentioned the problem with 'purpose' is presupposing
cause & effect. And now you want to establish the sameness of Life
in general. How do you know? Speculate away if you like, but
without proof it's really empty speculation.
Do you like to dance?
>What makes man unique among creatures is not his biological organism or
>behavioral habits, but his proprietary awareness. This is a sense of value
>by which he creates an orderly, meaningful world and adapts it to his needs.
>By his capacity to act on the values he chooses, he is able to change the
>world for better or worse, overstepping the bounds of biological instinct
>and using the laws and principles of nature to his own advantage. An
>individual human being is the free agent of his world. By the "weakest
>link" analogy, the "totality of man" can be no more "real", powerful, or
>metaphysically significant than its unitary agency.
The above paragraph is a lecture on your beliefs. I may even
believe partially as you do, but I do not know anything.
>As an artist, Marsha, you use your creativity to represent all of the above
>on canvas. Can you envision an ape or a cat painting pictures to express
>its valuistic impressions of reality? Conversely, can you imagine an
>individual ape or cat deciding to live a different "life style" than nature
>intended for him?
Have you ever watched Bullwinkle or followed Garfield's
shenanigans? I can imagine both of your conjectures thanks to some
very creative artists and technology. Ahhhhhh, language can be
slippery. Right?
>Think about it on your long walk.
>Regards,
>Ham
My long walks are for no-mind.
Adoringly,
Marsha
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.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
