Nihlism is the belief that social morals and values are baseless. MoQ posits that social values are based on biological values. One may look at this as nihlistic if one holds social morals and values as reality of the situation.
________________________________ From: Ham Priday <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Sent: Wednesday, April 8, 2009 3:40:57 AM Subject: Re: [MD] Computers vs. Brains Hey, Krimel -- > On its merits, I have given your "metaphysical theory" > more time and credit than it deserves. Okay. You choose to continue the endless discussion as to what is dynamic and what is static, how experience breaks down into a tetrology of levels, and what Pirsig's equivalency equations really mean. That of course is an exercise of free choice which is your prerogative as an agent of value in a relational universe. I respect your freedom and will not press you toward an alternate worldview. Before ending this dialogue, however, I want to correct a few misconceptions you've expressed concerning Essentialism. > Well of course you disagree. But I am not attracted to > ultimate reality. As I said I do not know what the term is > supposed to mean. I find the source of Value not in one > big thing but in all the little everyday things I find in > the world around me. Like everybody else, you "find value" in the everyday things you experience. But while your sensibility is irretrievably linked to the SOURCE of Value, you experience only what value represents, relationally, in your world. (Even Pirsig has said that "experience is the cutting edge of reality" and that what isn't valued does not exist.) > We are not "placed" here in space and time. > We arise out of space and time. Our existence is framed by time and space, which is the mode of human experience. But we are neither caused by nor derived from these dimensions. The sensibility at the core of self-awareness is negated from Essence to divide it from an insentient otherness. It is this Sensibility/Otherness dichotomy which establishes difference from the oneness of Essence and makes the differentiated world of appearances possible. > You keep saying "nothing can come from nothing" but > this is a testable notion. It may or may not be true and > apparently in the case of the universe itself it may be > utterly false. And as always, you fail to account for where > the primary source comes from. Have you actually > thought about this? Yes, but apparently you have not. Everything in existence has a beginning and an end, the alpha and omega of cosmology's entropy. All of existence is "process", which the human intellect interprets as cause-and-effect, starting with creation or the Big Bang. But Essence is absolute, not an existent, so it is not limited by the conditions of finitude, such as space/time, difference, and change. The Essence I have postulated is immutable in its absoluteness, which means that the primary source is "uncreated". This is not a new idea in religion or classical philosophy, and it is the only logical solution to the mystery of creation. [Krimel, previously]: > And you whine about Nihilists. Without brains or > sensing creatures what you have left is Death. [Ham]: > You've just demonstrated the kind of reasoning that makes me whine about > nihilists. [Krimel]: > You don't actually address what I said. So you confess that > your Absolute reality ultimate thingymabob is utterly lifeless. You must be taking "restructuring" lessons from Arlo. I confess to nothing of the kind. Nihilism is the view that values and beliefs are unfounded and that existence serves no moral purpose. Central to the philosophy of Essentialism is the belief that Essence negates "otherness" within the "not-other" to support the existence of a sensible agent that can appreciate Value autonomously and without bias. Back in December, Arlo got his jollies by suggesting that "God that has created a cosmos as a stage for man, whose purpose for being is to revel in the Magnificence of the Source." (Actually he was half right: the value agent is also repulsed by what is experienced as evil and harmful.) But later he got really asinine: "Ah yes, far better is the purpose that we are here to satiate the ego of a vain and insecure Source, who's Superiority is only marred by his need to be adored." Do you see this as anything but the satire of a nihilist? > Again without sensory apparatus nothing gets experienced. True. But "experience" is not what undifferentiated sensibility is. That's why I make a distinction between sensibility and experience. > Sense and all of its derivatives in English refer to the five > commonly acknowledged senses which do require neurons. > If you have something else in mind might I suggest you find > a more appropriate term or make up a new one of your own > but please stop abusing the common tongue. Neurons or not, the five senses are involved in producing experienced sensations: tactile, visual, auditory, aromatic and taste. These differentiated sensory values are integrated by the central nervous system as "experience". By "sensibility" I refer to the undifferentiated (Essential) Value from which psycho-emotional or esthetic awareness is derived. But if you have a better term for sensibility, I'd be happy to know it. > Epistemology is about human understanding and what humans > can understand. To propose that understanding is beyond > understanding is ridiculous. And yet even then, you say it is > beyond understanding, but you understand it. You seem to > regard being unable to explain something in meaningful terms > as a virtue. I do actually read your stuff sometimes and mostly > I just let you ramble on in your befuddled way. But yeah, > occasionally I find some comfort in reminding you that you > really are not making the least bit of sense. Absolute Essence is beyond understanding, just as Absolute Truth is inaccessible. The reason I "seem to regard (this) as a virtue" is that it affords us the capacity to realize value independently without bias. I believe the "innocence" of man's position in existence is necessary for his free choice of values, which is the central morality of my thesis. I'm pleased that you take occasional pleasure from my writing, despite your inability (or is it unwillingness?) to make sense of it. Perhaps, in time, the ontology will "sink in" and your comfort will be augmented by the logic of my thesis. Anyway, thanks for the critique, Krimel. Best wishes, Ham 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/ 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/
