OK John, Gotcha, I misinterpreted your post. I got the impression that value can only be sensed from within.
Not this, not that does not mean that the intellect cannot grasp what is, because it can in Eastern philosophies. It is more like a rejection of SOM. You cannot point at it. The reason for the double rejection is because such awareness does not come from a logical progression. To create a logic such as the intellect can grasp, makes an it out of it (get it, it?) "It hits you like a diamond bullet", as Kurtz's emissary said in Apocalypse Now. Mark Mark, I don't agree, By your perception, or belief, John, Marsha's statement does not work, > as you believe the subjective denies the objective. I would say I believe the subjective is creative and affirmative of the objective, that there is a constructive aspect to the reality "I perceive". This is > similar to Ham's sensibility. Marsha believes in the objective, > that is, what exists both within and outside of our experience. > Well I might be closer to Ham than I realized, sensibility seems close enough to whatever existence is that I could go with it. But I don't read Marsha the way you do here. I'd say rather that Marsha believes in "not this, not that" a devout belief in the inability of any intellectual pattern to capture what is. which is a pretty good point, in itself. But one I reject as a roller coaster existentialist because even though all metaphysical platforms might ultimately be incomplete, I still need SOMEthing to stand on as I wait my turn for the ride. > It is hard to debate when the fundamental tenants start at > different places. I suppose the debate should be who's > starting point has more Quality. A subjective viewpoint > can be argued to be more amoral. However, the objective > view often tries to define morality. > The Quality view starts with the realization of Value - a platform for judging separate from either subject or object and then figures out what works best in the moment. > Did morality exist before man? Is it a fundamental > truth? MoQ would argue that it is. > > I use the word Morality as distinct from Value, that is, morality is what arises from man's apprehension of value - but Man's existence is dependent upon absolute value or Quality, in it's Pirsigian/Roycean terms. > Mark > I still don't quite understand Marsha, > It's a woman's task to always remain somewhat a mystery, and thus instantiate in their very being the mystery of life. Marsha does a good job. 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/ 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/
