On Monday, 12/29/09 at 6:06 PM, John writes:
Ham,
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?
What is the cosmos but "an orderly harmonious system" that our experience
constructs?
What are we but the cognizant sensibility of a reality whose essence
surpasses our understanding? Why do we feel the need to capture this
essence and possess it for ourselves? Why is it that in our life struggle
to achieve contentment the essence of reality always eludes us?
Put it all together and you have what the sophisticates call "desideratum."
The dictionary defines it as "something desired as essential", but ordinary
people like us understand it as the longing or craving for that which we do
not have but fervently seek. Socrates expressed this feeling thusly: "The
man who desires something desires what is not available to him, and what he
doesn¹t already have in his possession; and what he neither has nor himself
is - that which he lacks - this is what he wants and desires." Sartre was
more explicit about man being "found wanting". "We want the being of the
other for ourselves," he said. If that sounds like Value to you, Bingo!
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.
You are so close to grasping the truth of my ontogeny that you're circling
around it, as if you fear it will scorch you. Let me guide you safely to
the central proposition.
For sensibility to exist as a free agent, it must be "individualized", that
is, negated or separated from the uncreated source. This creates a negate
(self-awareness) which initally seeks comfort and nourishment from its
mother, but quickly becomes aware of an otherness external to itself. In
short order, otherness is experienced as a world that exists independently
of the subjective self. Throughout its life, the individual learns to
acquire the comfort, nourishment, and satisfaction it desires from this
experiential world (cosmos), perhaps never realizing that these values
represent objectively the affinity of the subject for its estranged Essence.
Instead of wanting "the being of the other for ourselves", as the
existentialists postulated, we want to reclaim the Essence of otherness
which, to us, is Value because that is all we are sensible of. So that,
through experience and intellection, we actualize the universe as an ordered
system of relational "beings" (objective phenomena) that represent what is
left of the other when we incrementally add its values to our existential
void. In simpler words, we create being by extracting Essential Value from
otherness to supplant our own nothingness.
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.
Well, you and I are subjects of that objectified Value. So it is the realm
(the valuistically-actuated cosmos) that we all participate in.
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.
Oh, but I think we are. You are already using my terminology, whether you
realize it or not, and are raising questions that indicate a reluctance to
"settle in", which I would expect at this juncture. Incidentally, finitude
connotes a state or condition of finite entities rather than simply a system
bounded by limited space.
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.
Not just to have something to think about, but to have Value to realize
differentially.
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?
I don't know. Why don't you tell me. We can desire everything we can
experience, as well as what we can't. Since we create our own experience,
yet still desire more, doesn't this suggest there is something beyond
experience that attracts us?
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.
As I've said before, you're almost there John. All you have to do is remove
the artificial hurdles you've set up to test my credibility.
Happy Holidays and wishing you peace in your home.
The same to you, John. (I could use a little more peace in my home ;-).
Happy New Year,
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/
