On Tue, Jun 30, 2009 at 4:26 PM, Ham Priday <[email protected]> wrote:
> John -- > 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. Whoa right there buckeroo. I don't see that logical connection at all. A game requires agreement on the rules and so does "meaning". You can't have meaning all on your own - meaning is a collaborative. Game is just a term for this collaboration. And if you get all high and mighty on me, I might not play with you. > 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. Really? I don't know anything about that. If you want to change the results, change the rules. Make "getting questions posed on this forum resolved" the PURPOSE of the game and see who can come up with the "winning" solution then. Perhaps that might satisfy? Your use of the word "intended" has me puzzled. Yesterday I asked you to > explain what you meant by "an intentional existence". YOUR use of the word has me puzzled as well. I don't remember coming up with the concept "intentional existence". Doesn't ring a bell with me. I ignored the query because I assumed it directed at someone else. Did I mention that or was it Joe? Either way, it seems a bit redundant as a concept. I assert existence as response to value. Another word would be "choice" or "judgement". Self is Choice. If that's what you mean by "intentional existence"... well ok. > 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. Well this is interesting. I thought I made it pretty clear but I guess I'll have to explain more. Hmmm... where should I start, me? Or you? I'll start with you. You ask if there is a distinction I make between real and intended value. I'll say yes. Intention is subjective. It's what *i* want. Real Value is what *my* intention directs me toward. I perceive real value and I intend to conform to it. It's almost like your basic subject/object perception except that Value isn't really in subject or object it's in the relation between them and my perception of this Value is bigger than SOM because judgeing IT is basically how I define my self. Intentionally, I suppose. If you wanna get accurate about it. And why not, that's what we're here for. Meaning and Truth. Are you serious? You can't see a semantically useful distinction here? Meaning is my intent and Truth the object of my intent? The Truth is out there. > > All three of your terms are perceived or consciously apprehended > principles. Yeah... So? > They exist only in conscious awareness, yet they apply to the experiential > world. They might apply to the experiential world. Depending upon their quality. They might also be the result of the mushrooms and pizza I ate with no correspondence to anything real at all. You have to judge. > Like everything else in existence, Meaning, Truth and Value are caught up > in the self/other dichotomy, hence neither exclusively subjective nor > objective. > True enough. And once again, so? The quest for exclusivity is that of the anal control freak. No. Wait, that's too harsh. Let's just put it this way: a more enlightening approach is to appreciate the ambiguity of self/other as freedom to play rather than a failure of metaphysical certainty. 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. You don't? "Patterns" is a pretty broad term, Ham. How would you analytically slice "categories" off from "patterns" ? > 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? Well admittedly, my experience of different "paths" is fairly limited. And I've never been particularly attracted to mystical teachings, although I've enjoyed the mushroom on occasion. My quote of Needlman reflected HIS interest in various paths, and maybe by the end of the book I'll have more information for you. But contemplate this in relation to Ron's idea of ZAMM and Lila as being koans, or "teachings" or a path in novel form which carries you through from one state of consciousness to another in a linear fashion. I think this would be a good illustration of a path. In which case your answer is in the structure of those writings. > 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 it was syllogistically structured just to give you this "out". IF you think the divisions done with an accurately wielded analytic knife, then hang around. If not, get yer jollies elsewhere. For me, your "primary difference between observing self and it's objective reality" suffers from two factors: Primary difference isn't primarily different enough to rely upon metaphysically and conversely, it's so commonplace usual in everyone that its boring. > Philosophy is not an art form, either. Ri-i-i-i-ght. It's not a game. Its not an artform. Got it. It's a deadly serious business which must be attended to. C'mon Ham. You gotta be joking. > 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? Be my guest. Wait. You've done that, right? Ok. But is that something we each do individually? Or is it a function of a collective? >> 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. Was Plato referring to the birds and the bees with his "common good"? Because if not, then my "whole" is bigger than his "whole". In fact, Gary Snyder in a talk I found somewhere referred to the morality of leaving tools out to rust as being an aspect of "do no harm" that encompassed the non-organic. That was really pushing it, if you ask me. But hey, I'm not Gary Snyder. > Right: What is best for me. >> > > That's John Carl's maxim. What is best for you isn't necessarily best for > me. > Right. I was defining best in a narrow self subjective way and good as a universal all-inclusive. What's best for me isn't always the good and vice versa. Something for Adam Smith to contemplate. > > > Thanks for playing so far Ham, >> > > And what if I don't accept your definitions?? Take your ball and go home. No hard feelings. > > > 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/
