Hi Ham Here follows part 2:
You had said: > If you're implying that words are useless, why are we talking? > Language is only the tool of social communication -- certainly not the > ground of existence. Subjective awareness isn't the ground of > existence, either, but it's the sensible locus of experience which > defines it. I merely pointed to language as IT ALL and as such it must be suspended. I challenge you to show me a reality outside of language. And if so language must either recede from the scene or a language metaphysics must be established. Language as a social tool is correct, but only possible inside the MOQ where there is a social level. > The way I see it, Value is what stands between subject and object, > alternately attracting or repelling the subjective psyche, depending > on the subject's value-sensibility. What we seek and what we avoid in > existence really has little to do with intellect. When you - who reject the level tenet - speak about intellect it's not the 4th level, but SOM's subject who monitors what goes on outside ourselves (it can even direct its attention to its own thoughts) What role "value" plays in this scenario may be as you say, but it has little to do with MOQ's 4th. level whose very VALUE is this subject/object split. > It's our differentiated psycho-emotional relationship to otherness (in > my ontology, the Value of Essence). Being-aware is what we ARE, and > Value is the essence of this interdependency. ... That's how we > become individuated beings who differentiate. Value into the multifold > objects of our experiential reality. The MOQ's idea is that before the 4th. level (when the social level was "leading edge") there were no S/O distinctions and you don't find much talk about ... "being-aware is what we ARE ...etc. in the few ancient (pre-intellect) texts there are. In Homer's "Iliad" for instance you won't find any references to awareness, thoughts, ideas, my opinion ...and such, it's all emotions, about fury and courage and semi-gods with fantastic qualities, but these aren't said to me supernatural, this hasn't yet come to be. In this case you are forced to deem the ancient people to be ignorant of the true S/O context. Not so with the MOQ, they were as intelligent as ourselves only their premises were the 3rd. level's. With the Greek thinkers the intellectual premises slowly emerged and began their march to power and now Ham Priday is dead sure that these are the last word. Ham on Essentialism: > Well, Bo, thus far I've avoided bringing it up because you didn't want > to discuss it, but Essentialism is a new metaphysics. I don't call it > a "subject" metaphysics, although it is definitely more subjective than > objective. It posits Sensibility and Being as One in Essence, and it > is based on Cusa's first principle which is the "coincidence of > contrariety". Existence is the actualized or "differentiated mode" of > Essence. It isn't new, it's SOM's subjective side coming to the fore, and as said, from its premises the subjective side has the stronger hand and I would have been "your man" had I not known the MOQ. > I suspect we agree on more than either of us admits. These statements > are most revealing. Perhaps you will explain for me how you > distinguish "dynamic" from "static" in the context of values. Are they > meant to infer "transcendent" or "non-transcendent", differentiated or > non-differentiated, or simply definable versus undefinable? Thanks for asking. The dynamic/static relationship is best visualized by the ocean/wave metaphor. The static levels are water too, but it's the wave form as different from the surface it rises above that matters. The inorganic level may be likened to a gigantic swell, with the biological a smaller - yet big - wave on top of it and so on upwards. "Transcendent" indicates some otherworldly quality, the upper level surely transcends the lower, but not in the said sense, they are of water too. "Differentiated"? Absolutely, but with the same qualification of being water. "Definable versus undefinable". Yes, that's the point, only the waves have form, the ocean is formless. I know this indicates an observer, not least regarding the MOQ which sees it all from above, but one can't avoid - I guess it's - Godel's Theorem. Your Essentialims will also at some point encounter it. > I've never asked before, and these labels have always puzzled me, > especially as I regard Essence as immutable and unchanging, whereas > existence is evolutionary and transitory or provisional. Yes, DQ is immutable and unchanging and with and the same static essence levels you'd have a winner, a MOE. > Thanks, Bo. Once again I deceive myself into thinking we are making > progress. We do make progress. An exchange like this would have been impossible a year ago (I forgot when you joined) your criticism of the MOQ is more worth than many ..... enough said! Bo 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/
