Good morning, Ham, On Sun, Dec 19, 2010 at 10:23 PM, Ham Priday <[email protected]> wrote:
> Greetings, John -- > > > Excuse me for breaking into your discussion with Dan, but I wanted you to > know that you've won my Words of Wisdom (WOW) award for the week ;-). > > John: Woo hoo! > > You said: > > Without conceptualization, there can be no experience. >> The very essence of experience is a realization of a something >> which requires a concept of some kind. >> > > Right on, John! Realization is what prompts Conceptualization, from which > experience is actuated. John: Couldn't it be said rather that conceptualization prompts realization? Maybe it works both ways because it is with realizing a pattern that a concept is born. "The possession of a 'concept' is not knowledge... Knowledge is propositional." (Scott Ryan) Ham: > You are also correct in "arguing against the idea of 'pure and direct' > experience." What needs to be defined is the "something" that is realized. > According to the MoQ paradigm, it is Quality (DQ), or what I prefer to call > Value. But in order to conceptualize such an ontology as a metaphysical > principle, one must first understand > the epistemology you have so succinctly stated above. > > John: I've been contemplating this since last night, and what I'm thinking at the moment is that one meaning of "value" is exactly what I mean by a "concept or a pattern". Take the simplest conceptualization of light and dark - the ubiquitious daily pattern that all mammals experience. Light could said to be a value, in the exact same sense that I mean it as a concept. It is pattern of experience that is contrasted or carved out of the whole. The realization of night and day. (some snippage) Ham: You appear to have unraveled the epistemology problem and are now expressing thoughts that support my ontology. We do, indeed, realize something called Value as primary to both experience and intellection. What is this Value, and where does it come from? Perhaps more important as regards the MoQ, does Value exist before it is realized? John: In this case, I'd take a pragmatic stance that "it doesn't really matter". That is, it doesn't make any difference if unrealized value exists or not, because we can only deal with what we do realize. My stubborn insistence of focusing upon "language all the way down" is rooted in the same idea, because talking about what lies outside of language seems pointless and futile in the end. It is upon that basis that I agree that "unrealized value is an oxymoron." However, there is a point to trying to always reach beyond our conceptions. That such an effort is driven by a quest that began with our birth whereby we build continuing linguistic analogues for our experience in a process that never ceases. And that this process as a whole very definitely points at what is beyond language or definition. Calling what we aim at "Intellectual Quality" seems as good a term as any, and better than most. Ham: > As I've said before, "unrealized value" is an oxymoron. Only an autonomous > agent can realize value, and the cognizant self is that agent. Existence is > valuistic; and Mr. Pirsig deserves full credit for advancing that precept. A > metaphysics requires more than a qualitative foundation, however. For if > Value exists only where there is a sensible agent to realize it, "existence" > infers an ultimate Source from which that Value (Quality) is derived. > > John: Now here is where it sounds to me as if you're dabbling in Absolute Idealism. Your "ultimate source" seems very close to Royce's "Absolute Knower". Ham: We can talk about "patterned" and "unpatterned", "static" and "dynamic", > until we're blue in the face, but all we're defining in the process is > differentiated existence or its aggregated whole as "beingness". Since > beingness is the product of experience which, in turn, is dependent on > value-sensibility, the primary Source logically must transcend existence. > For me, that means the Source is not a 'being' or an 'existent', not subject > to the conditions of space/time and cause/effect, but the uncreated > Absolute. > > John: Definitely Roycean. Ham: I have posited the Absolute as "Essence" because it is essential to any > metaphysical thesis and because it is by definition the essence of reality. > Whatever "is" or appears to be has Essence as its primary source, even if > nothingness differentiates it as otherness. Without getting into the > dynamics of negation, this is the ontology of the essentialism I have been > espousing. > > Back in 2009 you said. "I'm willing and even eager to play. I just need > some small agreement before knowing how to proceed." Well, inasmuch as you > seem to like some of what I've been saying and are basically in agreement > with my ontology, maybe it's time we had another talk. What's say, John? > > John: I've learned quite a bit since then Ham, and this seems very good to me. I would definitely like to continue the process. Happy Eclipsed Solstice. 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
