On Wed, Feb 17, 2010 at 12:01 PM, X Acto <[email protected]> wrote:
Ron, > Ron: > Individuals are indeed a collection of values, inorganic, organic, > social and intellectual. "personally chosen values" can apply > to intellectual values, perhaps even social to some degree. > But Individuals ARE their environments. Are we not composed of the air > we breath the water we drink the food we eat? are not our minds > affected, created, and exist by such things? > > I agree completely. It is for this reason I believe it is good to assign intellectual value to the health and wholeness of this environmental matrix. This is my argument for Nature as religious values. Such Values are derived from the intrinsic life-creating force that can be experienced in man's purest interaction with his natural environment, in mutually self-sustaining and perpetuating patterns, doing those things that are good, and thinking about it, and improving. > John: > So I guess "good" in this sense is debatable as to abstract or concrete. > > Ron: > you KNOW what it is, but it's different for everyone . What makes > something concrete grammaticaly, is that it may be verified by the > five senses among different individuals. Ok, fine for the rules of grammer. But what of that branch of philosophy known as metaphysics? What makes something concrete metaphysically? Suppose a man has a dream. Is this dream composed of any of his five senses? Even a blind man may dream of the light. But to the mind, that which indisputably IS, is what "concrete" means. Whether a dream or a hammer, my consciousness contains contents and what seems real to me, is the defintion of concrete to my mind. And it doesn't care about grammer or sensory dictation. Intellect is bound in the senses, but also free of the senses. > So the noun "Quality" gives > the imression of an entity but it's not. I'ts the root value of being . > > Hmmm. Root value of being. Lemme think for a minute. The root value of being cannot be an entity, because it must be a process. Being is always becoming. That which is static and unchanging can only decay. Quality isn't a thing, it's a process - an evolutionary process. That makes sense to me. I could put that on my wall. > John: > The only problem with good as being, is that sometimes it sucks to be. > Sometimes individual being isn't good at all, sometimes experience is just > plain bad. And yet, this doesn't obviate good. In fact, I'd rather say it > confirms it. > > Ron: > Again, good is a matter of interpretation. You need some Bhudda.. > > Dude! Don't we all. But actually, things are good. The grass grows tall, new opportunities beckon, spring is near. And of course its a matter of interpretation. Everything is. 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/
