On Sat, Jul 4, 2009 at 10:21 PM, Ham Priday <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> On July 4, 2009 at 4:56 PM, John Carl wrote --
>
>
> Ok Ham, now you have to aknowledge that you are playing a game here.
>> Because you went from "taking relatively simple stuff and erecting
>> complex unintelligible verbiage out of it" on one day to taking complex,
>> unintelligible stuff and making it relatively clear and simple on the
>> next.
>> That can't be by accident.
>>
>
> Because I'm not playing a game of words here but trying to express
> concepts, I've learned to tailor my language to the correspondent. If the
> shoe fits, wear it in good health.
>
Part of acknowledging a game in good sportsmanship, is acknowledging one's
opponent - that there must be AGREEMENT in order for the game to have any
validity. You can play alone, but it's not the same thing as philosophy.
You accede to the main thrust of my point by admitting you change your
presentation according to your conception of the correspondent. And for me,
that's what I mean by "we're playing a game" or "we're indulging in an
artform". Just to be clear upon two points you and I have disagreed upon.
Now.
on to the rest, best I can....
>> Yes. The first thing to understand is that all value is realized, and the
> realizer is a subject.
So the "value" I realise is something outside of myself, which "I" the
realizer conceive of using my entire conceptual/perceptual apparatus and
deduce from... sensory data???
Is the first thing I need to understand yer basic SOM? Cuz I get that.
Been handed that way of thinking basically my whole life. Is that what
you are offering Ham? More of the same?
> While survival may be a value from the human perspective, biological
> instinct and organic response mechanisms automatically serve this purpose in
> simple organisms.
"Serve this purpose" means "is valued by" in essence. Why do you change
terminology in the interest of confusion? It makes me question your whole
purpose in this game.
Only man has the capacity to discern moral and esthetic values and the
freedom to choose accordingly.
Wrong. AND blatantly anthropocentric. Even my dog can choose to go left or
right. Even my dog knows when he's doing wrong.
Ham]
But the values that drive man's behavior are not "universal" but relative
to his sensibility and the situation he confronts. Finally, all values are
derived from Essence,
Or God. Or Quality. Or Tao. Or the big turtle which holds the worlds on
its back. whatever . They're all postulated mythos blowin' in the wind
and the only question that matters to me is "which one is best"? Which
pertains to the quality of one's society, eh? The society that picks the
best mythos wins. Yay.
Ham]
Here's an excerpt that addresses your question. ...
"For the Essentialist, Value is foundational. Indeed, it is the value of a
thing that we seek in our experience of the world. Value, whether a tactile
sensation, color, sound, taste or smell, is what fills our awareness and is
retained in the memory of our experience. We realize many kinds of value,
of course, ranging from our emotional reaction to esthetic beauty to our
intellectual appreciation of freedom and justice. But if value is neither a
property of the thing observed nor an attribute of the observing subject,
where does it come from?
John]
Do I care? Do we need to know origin? In my estimation, the value of the
existence of value is enough. This is why I pursue Royce and Pirsig - the
metaphysical demonstration of Value is enough. I don't know if I need much
more. I can take it from here, thanks. Knowing Good as a real entity gives
me enough gumption to play the game to the best of my ability. Discussing
the best terminology seems a worthy enough hobby for those who want it. But
I'm not sure I'm there.
Ham]
Value is subjective -- once it is made aware. But the source of perceived
value is essential; that is to say, it "resides in" Essence. And, just as
rocks and trees and houses are essentially not differentiated objects, value
is essentially not relative.
John]
I dunno Ham. I think you got marketing issues. "Essence" sounds too much
like "Ether". A phlogostonitic substance of which all is revealed...
Wooo..oo..oo.
What we psychically apprehend is differentiated "otherness". We sense the
value of this otherness incrementally while cognitively constructing the
objects by which they are identified. In other words, otherness is primary,
and Value and Being are secondary or derived experience."
-- An Epistemology of Value, www.essentialism.net/Epistemology.htm
John]
Except that otherness is a value and thus your episomology sucks.
dude.
And mainly because of that value-ambiguity issue I keep harping on.
But please don't stop because I really enjoy playing the game with you Ham.
John,
off his break and gone...
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/
