Sorry Ham, My fault. I don't label my interjections properly. I'm lazy that way. But it was me, not Andre who said...
> Because the individual, when objectively analyzed, requires context for >> definition of itself and proper self-understanding. Without realization >> of >> context, individuation disappears. Thus the individual cannot be taken as >> fundamental all by itself, without causing all kinds of metaphysical >> problems. >> > > Ham: > Who says the individual must be "objectively analyzed"? Certainly not an > MoQist. > John: Certainly not "must", but if you're gonna do it, if you choose to do it, then there is only one way it is possible - contextually. Ham: > The context of individual subjects and objects is that of difference and > relation. > John: I would say difference IS a relation thus the context of individualization is relationship. A "relationship" is a connection between objectified concepts. (or conceptualized objects) Ham: > The nature of subjective awareness is proprietary sensibility. Sensibility > is not an inherent property of relational existence, so it can't be > "objectively analyzed". John: Well, I disagree on several points then. First, I could just as easily say, "the nature of proprietary sensibility is subjective awareness", therefore sensibility IS a property of relational existence. What else could possibly qualify? And anything can be objectively analyzed. You just have to accept that your objectifying is relative and not absolute. Ham: > Since sensibility is both self-evident and fundamental to awareness, it can > only be "analyzed" metaphysically, whatever "problem" this may cause the > MoQist. > > John: None for me. Analyzing metaphysically is our business here. Ham: > I also object to your caveat to Joe: > > Ham plays on the importance of the individual (using his 'essence' >> as Platt uses the MoQ) to justify the exploitation of this concept of >> individuality for political/economic purposes. >> >> It simply is to justify the static social patterns of value they firmly >> believe in. >> > John: Now that was Andre. So I'll refrain from defending his words for him. Ham: > That simply isn/t true. To claim that I spent half my life developing a > philosophy for political/economic purposes is absurd. (Hell, I wouldn't > know what a "static social pattern of value" was if I sat on it!) > > John: I'll take your word for what is absurd spending half your life doing; I mean, how could anyone argue? Half your life would take just about all of mine. But I bet there are "static social patterns of value" out there that you could sit on and know it! Or maybe they'd sit on yours. Isn't that called a lapdance? yours from Reno, 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/md/archives.html
