Greetings Ham,
At 02:29 PM 6/13/2009, you wrote:
On Saturday, June 13, 2009 at 3:31 AM, Marsha wrote:
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.
Thanks for writing, it was helpful in clearing up some of the
conflict I had with the term anthropocentric. It doesn't seem so
evil anymore. I still think the best understanding of REALITY is
found in Lila's words: "...I'm whatever your questions turn me into.
You don't see that. It's your questions that make me who I am. If you
think I'm an angel then that's what I am. If you think I'm a whore
then that's what I am. I'm whatever you think. And if you change your
mind about me then I change too. So whatever Richard tells you, it's
true. There's no way he can lie about me." - Reality is
whatever you think it is, there's no way you can lie about it, and if
change your understanding of reality, then reality changes too.
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.
Phenomena as "value construct" seems pretty like conceptually
constructed patterns. Dynamic Quality is indivisible, undefinable
and unknowable; "negated as a sensible creature" goes conceptually
too far for my comfort. Man's link to the source has been described
many ways, who's to say yours is best. I find it conceptualized as
'not this and not that'.
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 .
I read this paper the first time you suggested it, but read it
again. Here's a paper I like:
Time and Impermanence
in Middle Way Buddhism and Modern Physics
Talk at the Physics and Tibetan Buddhism Conference
University of California, Santa Barbara January 30-31, 1998
Victor Mansfield: [ [email protected] ]
Department of Physics and Astronomy
Colgate University Hamilton, NY 13346
http://www.buddhanet.net/timeimpe.htm
Thank you.
Marsha
_____________
"He who neglects the present moment throws away all he has."
(Friedrich von Schiller)
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/
