On Mon, Sep 7, 2009 at 12:33 AM, Ham Priday <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > Now you're twisting MY statement. Experience itself is subjective. Yes! I'm twisting your statement into MoQsense. Subjectivity itself is experiential! Duh! How could it be any other way? I'd use all kinds of trite cliches about chickens and carts and eggs and horses and whose hatching who, whose pulling who. But those have been thrust upon you all your MoQ life, to no avail. You evade with persistence the fundamental agreement. There must be a reason; fascinating to work out. > > 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? > Sans Value, there is neither observer, cognition nor observed. You can't put the subject as primary in that equation. That's the fundamental issue. > > 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. > > Everything is Ham, everything is. 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/
