>
> There is no certainly in metaphysics, but there is plenty of meaning if one
> is willing to conceptualize it. Man is not born into a world of certainty,
> which is why his essence is value rather than truth. As an observer of
> nature (beingness) whose awareness is independent of it, he is free to
> choose his values. What is Truth for man is what has meaning to him, and
> meaning is derived from his values rather than logic or numbers.
Ok let's play this game carefully and one step at a time:
Meaning - the intended value of one's conceptualizations - subjective
Truth - the congruence of one's meaning to an idealized, abstract value -
objective
Values - usually contextually defined - ultimately in and of itself,
undefinable
Now those simple rules I laid out seem right to me. But they cause havoc
with your assertions above. For instance,
"What is Truth for man is what has meaning to him," is almost right, but not
quite. For "Truth for man" is an objective value and "meaning to him" is
subjective and if there is a relationship here, then it ought to be
explicated rather than merely asserted, which is common theme with me to
you, Ham, in this game of metaphysical logic we play.
So before we go too far down this yellow brick road, let's review my three
definitions of Meaning, Truth and Values and see if we can agree on these
rules before we play this game. And heed this: I'm willing and even eager
to play. I just need some small agreement before knowing how to proceed.
Cuz if we were to proceed willy-nilly, I'd rip ya a new one on the next
assertion of yours....
"and meaning is derived from his values rather than logic or numbers."
[Ham continues]
>
>> The Indians also had a saying that you don't know a man until you walk in
> his shoes. Putting yourself in the other's place is the best way to score
> points in an argument, and it would spare us much acrimony on this forum.
J]
Perhaps. Perhaps not. Acrimony implies a defensive ego reaction which,
while it does show a definite investment in the game, also reveals a
forgetfulness of the basic metaphysical reality of Quality - that the most
we can contain in any one moment is "best" and in order to always strive for
"good" we have to hold our best provisionally.
[John quoting Needleman]:
>
>> "There is a kind of wonder which accompanies the perception
>> of a difference of levels in the universe and in ourselves. But it
>> seems we then all too easily dream of striding beyond this
>> difference of levels, rather than seeking to allow the higher level
>> to enter our minds as a kind of guide to our unknown selves.
>> That is why it seems to me that men need the discipline of a path,
>> and the ideas which it brings in ways that interfere with the
>> egoistic cerebral automatism."
>>
>
>
{Ham responding to John's quote of Needleman}
> Perhaps. But you have not answered my question: Why do we need levels? We
> live in a world of difference.
[John replies]
"Difference" vs. "levels"
We need levels as an explanatory concept for dealing with our world of
differences. Levels are differentiated patterns and probably synonomous with
the concept "difference", if you think about it.
> Difference is all around us as we seek unity. How does arbitrarily
> dividing what is already differentiated into incremental levels help us
> realize this unity?
It wouldn't help at all if the division is arbitrary. If the division is
done with an accurately wielded analytic knife, then it can be a tremendous
help in realizing the deeper unity. Otherwise, what the heck are we even
doing here? I'd say what Needleman's quote is about is that the quality of
that knife wielding is what constitutes the quality of one's Path.
> It seems to this observer that the only difference we need to recognize is
> the separation of that which "knows" from that which IS -- in other words,
> Sensibility from Being. This primary division of sensible awareness from
> absolute Is-ness (Essence) is for me the beginning of Difference
>
Well "the only difference we need" means to me that you think that the
highest quality knife-wielder is the one that makes one slice and that's it.
I like a little more artistic variety than that. You want to cut down the
tree and call it a totem. Boring. Especially if all you're gonna do is
separate subjective and objective and call the whole thing done.
[Ham repeats]
I also asked, in what way did Aristotle or Descartes get it wrong by
> positing existence as a subject/object dualism?
>
> Starting with his cogito ergo sum, Descartes first identified self with
>> associations of thought. He then separated this "self" off from
>> surrounding nature, including the body. And the body he then
>> understood to be devoid of consciousness, purpose and the inherent
>> power of life. The implications of this separation are realized when
>> we face nature as explainers and conquerors, thus causing a biological
>> disruption which threatens man's future existence.
>>
>
> The first part of what you wrote explains the Cogito. But I don't recall
> Descartes saying anything about a threat to man's future.
[John]
Nah, that's just the way reality has confirmed the error in Descartes
thinking. You asked what way he (they) got it wrong. I answered my best.
> Are you editorializing again, John?
Always and forever. Amen. Trying to earn my warm spot in the sun to enjoy
my ripened blackberries.
> How can humans adapt nature to his needs without exploring its dynamics
> and physical principles and applying them to his society? Isn't this the
> method by which mankind achieves material progress? Why should this be a
> threat to humanity?
>
Because it is not the purpose of life for man to adapt nature to man's
needs. I assert that man's purpose in life is to adapt himself to what is
good. Here's another couple of definitional rules for you in
"my/provisionally our" game:
Good: What is best for the whole
Right: What is best for me.
Thanks for playing so far Ham,
John
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/
--
------------
Doing Good IS Being
------------
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/
