On Saturday, June 13, 2009 at 3:31 AM, Marsha wrote:
Greetings Ham,
I am not interested in interrupting the flow of this dialogue,
but would like clarification of your use of the term 'anthropocentric'.
Here are three interpretations from an online dictionary:
1. regarding the human being as the central fact of the universe.
2. assuming human beings to be the final aim and end of the universe.
3. viewing and interpreting everything in terms of human experience and
values.
Suddenly 1. & 3. seem obvious (empty, but obvious). To state otherwise
would be to have knowledge outside of the human experience. 2. seems
strange, though, because of the 'aim and end'. Whose aim and whose end?
Since any such definition could
only be of human origin, the idea seems circular. Aim and end are
like purpose which make them simply a human definition or outside
of human knowledge.
Do you understand my puzzlement?
I understand your question, Marsha, although I've previously explained
"anthropocentric" to John as "regarding the world in terms of man's values
and experiences." Dagobert Runes, my handy philosophical reference, has
this brief entry for anthropocentric: "Literally, centering in man. A term
which may be used in connection with extreme humanism, viewing the world in
terms only of human experience."
As for your second interpretation, "final aim and end of the universe," I
would consider that a definition for "teleology" rather than
anthropocentrism. While it is true that man's centrist worldview is the
conscious locus of his universe, this definition implies that human beings
are the final aim of REALITY. I don't think we can extrapolate beyond man's
role in existence. For me, the purpose of being-aware is to realize Value,
which is our relational sense of the primary source.
And, while I have the opportunity, those "ever-changing, interrelated and
interconnected inorganic, biological, social and intellectual, static
patterns of value"
that you continually refer to are what most philosophers simply call
"phenomena". I define phenomena as "value constructs" actualized by
experience. In the sense that man brings value into being as differentiated
phenomena, Essentialism is a "valuistic" ontology. Unlike Pirsig's DQ,
value is not the essential source; it is merely man's link to the source
(Essence) from which he/she is negated as a sensible creature.
Perhaps this will help to clarify my metaphysical difference with Mr.
Pirsig. Have I resolved your "puzzlement", Marsha? If not, I'm adding a
highly readable essay to my archives list which may clear everything up.
Though I wish I could take credit for it, it's by an unknown author who
presents Valuism as an "individual philosophy". You should be able to link
to it at www.indval.org .
Thanks and kindest regards,
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/
