Ham, I think we could come into agreement if you would not stick so close to the human-ism and adjust your fevered attachment to objectivism.
On Sun, Sep 6, 2009 at 11:17 AM, Ham Priday <[email protected]> wrote: Human beings apprehend the world valuistically; we are value-sensible > creatures. Any attempt to remove Quality or Value from the context of > subjective perception is self-defeating and fallacious. In short, as I've > said many times, there is no such thing as "unrealized value". > Right! There is no such thing as "unrealized value" and humanity is not the only value-aware agent of sensibility in the cosmos. Biocentrism says LIFE responds to Quality. Not just (only) Ham. > I think your twisting of semantics obscures the "appreciative" meaning of > Quality. (This may be intentional for one who doesn't acknowledge the > subjective nature of experience.) > > Well of course I acknowledge experience of a subjective nature... when I'm confronted with it. My "twisting of semantics" (before) wasn't intended to obscure Quality's appreciative aspect. I viewed it as confirmatory - another way of saying the same thing. Appreciation is to Caring as Caring is to Quality. Virtually synonymous. I thought that was my point. > Quality, as I understand it in the epistemological sense, is perceived > Value. It is what we individually (subjectively) sense of Reality > (appreciatively or revulsively) and intellectualize as objective phenomena. Quality, as I understand it, doesn't actually exist in the epistemological sense. Epistemology exists in a Quality sense. What we subjectively sense of reality are objects - if we want to look at reality that way. And its handy sometimes, but not necessary nor metaphysically fundamental as you assert repeatedly. Except I would say that Appreciation is "the emotional sensibility" of what > is infinite, since that is our "reality". Royce is right that "description > presupposes appreciation." But history and evolution are the existential > (time) perspective of human experience. The teleology lies in the relation > of being-aware to its Absolute Source. Insofar as Value is the subject's > link to that Source, its appreciation by the subject represents our > "metaphysical teleology". (And it's not Biocentrism, its Essentialism.) > I think Royce makes a profound point about evolution being a story of man's organic wholeness and connectedness with this "other" that seems other, but isn't. "the transition from animal to man is in fact really an evolution, that is, a real history, a process having significance. If this is in truth the real interpretation of nature, then the romantic philosophy has not dreamed in vain, and the outer order of nature will embody once more the life of a divine Self." You can say evolution is the time perspective of human experience, but as human experience arises out of this very process it obviously speaks of transcendent values beyond mere subjective individual experience. Biocentrism or Essentialism, I don't care. As long as life is valued. Thanks for the engagement, 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/
