Ham, I'd like to address your last point first,
You conclude with: "One point of clarification before you do: the cosmos isn't value-oriented, WE are. Try to remember that the essence of a human being is value-sensibility. It is we who bring value into the world as existential reality." I see this as our main point of difference: If the cosmos isn't value-oriented, then why are we? Where do values come from, if not the cosmos? I mean everything else that composes a human comes from the cosmos - the matter of our being, the social-cultural matrix of our thought and lives, the DNA programming of our past and future - all this comes from outside of us and enters us and forms us. But you say these all-important values just arise spontaneously from within? How come and by what mechanism? And then you say we introduce this mysteriously appearing value-sensibility to the rest of the world. Thus you make man the center and originator of all things. I have so many problems with that concept, I don't even know where to begin. Maybe there's a clue below. > Analytical experience is a special kind of experience, that Pure Value >> does not submit to without losing everything that makes it Pure. >> > > Exactly. So you don't experience it. You experience only difference, > epistemologically the differentiation of Value into finite phenomena > experienced as objects of being. I see what you mean, but "analytical" doesn't simply mean differentiation. Analytical implies reflection. There's a big difference between the temperature of the hot stove and the temp of my butt, but it doesn't take analysis to tell me to jump off, just pain. > For the reason you cited above. Human beings are not wired to experience > pure, non-objectified Value. I disagree. There is nothing to experience BUT pure, non-objectified Value. We just can't put it into words. When we do, we find ourselves in a different realm - objectified Value. > Metaphysically, a being cannot partake of the Absolute. We are created > separately from our absolute source, and our value-sensibility is finite and > relational, just as our universe is. > > I'd say, metaphysically, a being can't help BUT partake of the Absolute. We are created by our absolute source and there is nothing to indicate that our universe is finite. So far it appears we are not drifting closer. > I do not count imagination as "experience". Experience always has a > referent in otherness. Besides, even with no external sensory input, you > experience your bodily functions proprioceptively. As a human being, you > constantly experience somatic temperature, pressure, breathing, hunger, > pain, etc., not to mention self-awareness. Even in a comatose state you > cannot isolate yourself from your physical body. > > > Experience has a referent in otherness. That makes "sense" (haha) Subjective awareness arises in context to an other and then it turns it's awareness upon itself, turning even one's body into an other, just to have something to think about. > It ain't the experience of your Quality, but the quality of your >> Experience that matters. >> > > I think that's true, or I wouldn't be an essentialist. But where does that > lead us? I believe it leads us to analyze the quality of our experience and try and improve it. >> > [Ham continues]: > > Creatures are not equipped to experience undifferentiated or absolute >> Value, but value-sensiblity is intrinsic to the human being. >> > > [John]: > > Well I don't see any reason for that formulation. If I can't experience, >> it doesn't exist for me. Simple and done. No need for extraneous >> filigree like I see all over the Victorian mansions around here. >> > > There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in > your philosophy. > Ultimate reality is not part of your experience, so it doen't exist for > you. That's taking a rather narrow perspective of reality, isn't it? I wouldn't call it narrow, Ham. I'd call it exactly the right size. I like my reality to be the size of my experience, it's all I can handle in the moment, and yet it expands as my experience does without forseeable limit. What more could I desire? > Where is your reality when you cease experiencing and revert to the > nothingness from which you came? Have you ever considered that? > > Not seriously, but sometimes as an exercise in perspective and humility. > > The minute you sense value, you're in an experience. Whatever your >> experience, you're sensing values. That's not merely a rhetorical >> flourish >> it's rock solid foundational concrete, baby. Give it a slump of say... 3 >> 1/2 inches. That's the ground of our existence and I don't see why you >> want to separate out and precede one with the other. >> > > I don't catch your drift (or "slump") here. The moment your sense value > you actualize or create experience. This makes you aware of being in the > world. It's hardly what I would call a > "rock solid" empirical fact, but it is a logically plausible proposition. > Beyond that, I'm unable to follow you. I don't know what you mean by > wanting "to separate out and precede one with the other." Could you be more > explicit? > > Difficult, because the separation and precedence issue is what I thought you were proposing and THAT didn't make sense to me, so I don't see an easy way to make it make sense to you! > [Ham concludes]: > >> [Value] also affords us the autonomy to choose those values with which we >> are >> >> "in tune" esthetically, morally, and emotionally. This is what I refer >>> to >>> elsewhere as our "value complement," and it makes each individual unique >>> in his/her relation to Essence. >>> >> > [John]: > > Well this clues me in to your reason for your reasoning, and brings >> us back to a fundamental difference between your Anthropocentric >> Essentialism and my Roycean Idealism, the problem of choice in a >> value-oriented cosmos. So I'll digest this "autonomy" to choose those >> values with which we are "in tune" for a bit and get back to you. >> > > You do that, John. One point of clarification before you do: the cosmos > isn't value-oriented, WE are. Try to remember that the essence of a human > being is value-sensibility. It is we who bring value into the world as > existential reality. > > Pleasant dreams. > > --Ham Well I slept uneasily last night and haven't been feeling very sharp today. Maybe it's the time of the year and all, besides family issues to deal with, so a full and careful analysis will have to wait for a day or so. So let's just get it in as clear and simple terms as possible - for you value arises with the human agent who has autonomy in a value-free cosmos to pick and choose his way. For me the directional pull of intrinsic, cosmic value IS what gives choice - something to lean toward or away from. And thus arises moral choice. Furthermore, this moral choice exists on the intellectual level. That's why Pirsig, Fukuoka and myself point to Nature as the best example of uncorrupted values. You never know what you're getting with intellect. Happy Holidays and wishing you peace in your home, 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/
