John, Ham,
> John: > > How can you have Quality if there is no choice? [Tim] yes, nice. Though I might add that this might be seen more readily if we include the substitution Quality=Morality: How can you have Morality if there is no choice? > >[Ham] Thank you, gentlemen. I commend you both for acknowledging this truth. > > > > We can talk about "interrelated patterns" 'til the cows come home, but it > > won't lead to an understanding of the individual's role in existence or the > > morality that mankind seeks. [Tim] 'morality that mankind seeks': hmmmmm, hmmmmmmm, hmmmmmmmmmm --- just feeling a bit pessimistic at the moment, thanks Ham. > > John: > > However, Ham, we can talk about the individual's role in choice. It > might seem obvious to you that only humans can choose, but I disagree. [Tim] Thank you John! I have been a fan of using the word 'person' for any individual with a 'personality' (though perhaps I have to add something about social...). I can guarantee you that the cats I had when I was a kid had personalities (and they were social creatures - both intra- and inter- species). The human being is a more liberating confinement than a cat: but persons we are both. > > [John] However, it seems to me that we can have exhaustive conversation on > what > we do agree is the main point - "the morality that mankind seeks". So we > can go there, till the cows do indeed come home. [Tim] again: "hmmmmmmmm". My cats were really quite moral, but 'mankind'!? --- perhaps I should shut up till I'm feeling more optimistic. > > Ham: > > > At the risk of being repetitious, let me simply add that it is > > "individuality" which enables value to be realized in [as] a differentiated > > world. And, by virtue of man's innate sensibility and reason, every > > individual is free to act in accordance with his or her proprietary values. > > This makes man the "choicemaker" of his universe, allowing him to exercise > > "free will" as an agent of value limited only by the laws of existential > > reality. To deny this principle reduces the individual to an automaton > > subject to the vicissitudes of nature and/or the coercion of external > > authority. [Tim] Ham, thanks for saying 'differentiated' rather than something like 'negational'! I still haven't gotten too far into your thesis, though I have progressed a bit; I can say that I think our difference will be entirely in the way we imagine the absolute (and the words that follow thereupon)... But this, regarding our 'I's, and the differentiated world of common, I think we already agree. I read somewhere here recently about a disagreement about the absolute (I think it was between james and _______ ) and that James told the other fellow (was it bradley, John?), that a difference in an understanding of the absolute should not come between gentlemen. Perhaps this is where we should settle, Ham... we'll see. > John: > > Many people see themselves exactly as you [Ham] describe [automatonish]. > Their existential > reality IS that they are automatons subject to nature and society, with no > real freedom to do as they wish to do. I used to get frustrated with > this kind of thinking myself, and try and argue with them, but then I > realized, absence of free will is a choice as well! If they want to look at > it > that way, who am I to argue them out of their choice? [Tim] yes, it is a funny position! But, there is a third (and maybe a fourth): that there is choice, but no Morality. Since we have to live (or die, or suffer even worse) together, you are someone to argue them out of their choice. Tim -- [email protected] -- http://www.fastmail.fm - Accessible with your email software or over the web 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
