John --
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."
I'll play your "game", John, although I'm not much of a sportsman and I'm on
record as saying that philosophy is not a game. To treat it as such
suggests that there is no meaning apart from what one believes. This is a
kind of intellectual nihilism that affects our postmodern age by denying the
value of reality itself. Making philosophy a game is why most of the
questions posed on this forum never get resolved.
Your use of the word "intended" has me puzzled. Yesterday I asked you to
explain what you meant by "an intentional existence". Today you speak of
meaning as the "intended value" of one's conceptualizations. Is there a
distinction you are trying to make between real and intended value? If so,
it isn't clear to me. I don't promote "intended" value; I talk about
perceived (sensible) value which is the only value I know. That I may
"intend" for others to appreciate my concept does not impugn the reality of
value. Besides, hasn't Pirsig made it clear that value (Quality) is neither
subjective nor objective? I would say the same goes for "meaning" and
"truth", although you apparently disagree.
All three of your terms are perceived or consciously apprehended principles.
They exist only in conscious awareness, yet they apply to the experiential
world. Like everything else in existence, Meaning, Truth and Value are
caught up in the self/other dichotomy, hence neither exclusively subjective
nor objective.
As for my question, why do we need a hierarchy, you responded:
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.
Personally, I don't view Inorganic, Biological, Social, and Intellectual as
"patterns", but as categories of natural or evolutionary function that have
historical interest within certain scientific or academic communities.
Where is the mystical "path" that relates these four categories specifically
to a unified understanding? Are they more unique in this respect than, say,
Earth, Air, Fire, and Water? Or Energy, Force, Mass and Velocity?
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.
I just don't understand how this kind of reductionism -- categorizing
natural functions and adding them to an already differentiated universe --
provides a path to a "deeper unity". For me the primary difference between
the observing self and its objective reality is far more significant and
metaphysically meaningful than parsing arbitrary levels.
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.
Philosophy is not an art form, either. It takes but one slice of the knife
to create difference. Why compound it endlessly with conceptual constructs?
We all know what existential Difference is. Why not establish what
fundamental Reality is?
[Ham]:
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
pose a threat to humanity?
[John]:
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
What you've defined is Plato's "common good" -- the summum bonum. It leads
to socialism, communism, and fascism. Man doesn't know what is best for the
whole. The "best" he can do is champion life, liberty, and the pursuit of
happiness for all.
Right: What is best for me.
That's John Carl's maxim. What is best for you isn't necessarily best for
me.
Thanks for playing so far Ham,
And what if I don't accept your definitions??
--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/
