John --
[Ham, quoting essay on Valuism]:
"Value is a property that exists within minds. Something can be valued
by some people in the world, nobody in the world, or even everyone
in the world, but there cannot be a value that is 'objective,'
'necessary,'
or 'a priori'."
[John]:
The way it seems to me is that judgement is a property of mind that is
about values that exist "outside" of a mind. If the values themselves
were
intrinsic to mind, there would be nothing to think "about". Even in a
solidly S/O oriented mindset that seems obvious.
No, values do not exist "outside" of a mind. If something is of value, it
is desired or preferred by a subject, the agent of value. If the value is
negative or undesirable, it is the subject who avoids it. Can you name
something whose value is unrealized by a subject?
How can you logically assert something doesn't exist BECAUSE you
don't see it. It seems to me the best you could do is assert that there
is
no way to verify non-self-aware reality. To actually go all the way and
say the world disappears when you close your eyes is something most
humans outgrew in toddlerhood.
If I don't know it, it doesn't exist for me. If no one knows it, it doesn't
exist -- period. Pirsig was right on this one. He said, if a thing is not
valued it doesn't exist. Are you contradicting Pirsig?
[Ham, previously]:
I don't see valuation as an "intellectual pattern" but as the human
ability
to realize value "pre-intellectually" (to use Pirsig's term). And where
there is individual subjectivity there must also be objective experience.
It's the self/other dichotomy that characterizes existence.
[John]:
I agree with your last sentence completely. Subject and Object are
inseperable from each other and pretty much the way we talk and think.
Great intellectual tools that we'd be foolish to cast aside.
Call them "intellectual tools", if you want, John. But S/O is the way we
sense the world. This dualism doesn't require "intellect" because it is the
very nature of physical existence. To pretend that subjects and objects
don't exist for the sake of a philosopher/poet is sheer foolishness.
My point, however, is that Essentialism is a valuistic philosophy, whereas
the MoQ is neither valuistic nor "qualitative" because of its collectivist
epistemology which rejects the subject. Value exists as a "realization" --
specifically, the realization that there is something greater than one's
self-awareness. And that realization requires a sensible agent as its
subject.
Thanks for allowing me to express this viewpoint, John.
--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/
