John --
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.
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.
Now you're twisting MY statement. Experience itself is subjective. My
point was that for someone who doesn't accept experience as proprietary to
the self, Quality and Value have meaning only as an attribute of the
universe, like gravity or symmetry. Thet's why you have so much trouble
defining 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.
How about Desiring, Wanting, Admiring, Aspiring? Are these not appreciative
responses to Quality (Value)? And how does an insentient universe "aspire"
to be something better?
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.
That's also the fallacy of Pirsig's myth. Life is a biological process like
evolution. A process may be directed by the forces of nature, but it cannot
"value" or "desire". Valuing and desiring are unique to living individuals.
They are what gives man the freedom to choose, a significant role that is
dismissed in the Quality thesis. "Sensibility" is individuated in
existence, which means that awareness, experience, feeling, perception,
thought, intellection, and knowing are all proprietary to the individual
subject.
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.
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.
Another semantic twist which makes no sense to me. If Quality (Value) is
not epistemic, it has no existential foundation. Value can exist only if
there is a cognizant agent (subject) to realize it. Not fundamental? Think
about it. What value (transcendent or localized) would the universe or any
object have in the absence of a cognizant observer?
Biocentrism or Essentialism, I don't care. As long as life is valued.
Oh, life is valued all right. But not by inanimate objects, processes, or
other experiential constructs of man's reasoning.
Thanks for the engagement, Ham.
I'm afraid it's a limited engagement, John.
--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/
