Hello Ham, and greetings from Bozeman. I almost feel like I'm on my own Hajj. Hopefully I'll have time to share more of my experience later. Ham:
I know you don't agree with my cosmology. You don't accept my > epistemology that Value (Quality) doesn't exist in the absence of > awareness. > John: I do agree that Quality cannot exist in the absence of awareness. I disagree with the way you then conclude that Quality is subordinate to, or derivative of awareness. I see them as equally dependent, for you can't have awareness without some sort of valuation of things. Ham: > And, in the MoQ tradition, you believe the social level begets selfness, > rather than the other way around. > John: Correct. Although I don't derive this idea from the MoQ, I get it from Royce. Self is a socially - taught construct. A Quality Idea, on the social level. Ham: > > So I went back to earlier statements of yours, hoping to learn the crux > of our disagreement. Instead, I came across this curious analysis > (character study?) of Ham you provided for David Thomas in February > of 2010: > > I don't think Ham gets pissed. He's all cold, calculating and analytical >> all the time. He's not a whole man, ya know? But the half man he is, >> seems so formidible that I don't think I could even go there, it's like a >> baby >> wrestling an alligator, but the lopsidedness necessary for all that >> intellectual >> focus is it leaves the person as ignorant and helpless as a baby from the >> other side of being - the dynamic romantic side that looks ridiculous to >> the isolated intellect. >> >> And what does an anthropocentric cosmology portend? Intelligence locked >> in self-imposed prison, locked away from the roots of life and being. The >> ostentatious and self-creative self. It's not exactly child abuse as we >> normally >> call it, its rather the intellect's suppression and abuse of the child >> within. >> That is Ham's suffering. You nailed it, Dr. Dave. DQ is fun! >> > > As the unwary subject of this analysis, perhaps you could explain why I > come > across to you as a "cold, calculating half man" who is "locked away" from > "the > dynamic romantic side". Just what part of a human persona am I missing, in > your opinion? Be as candid as necessary, John; I won't get "pissed". > Knowing > what others think of me will enable me to work on deficiencies that may > have > made my arguments less palatable in these circles. > > John: I had a good friend, once. Steve Marquis. He and I used to have much the same kind of discussions. Steve is an engineer. He had a place for everything and was very uncomfortable with spontaneity. My perspective on you Ham, comes from a guy who is pretty much loosey-goosey and impulsive and given to romantic swoons. So if you seem rational-oriented to me, you have to take into consideration that I'm who I am. Also, my thinking has been greatly influenced by RMP's writings, and I tend to classify people into categories of romantically and classically - oriented and you seem very classic to me. I do try and keep the appreciation that nobody fits into any category completely, and that we all evolve and change and influence one another in numerous ways so we cannot get stuck on just our past interpretations. I've gained in appreciation of you Ham, since I wrote that over two years ago, and some of those opinions I would revise. > Always appreciate your insights, John -- even when they "hurt". > > Best regards, > Ham > > John: > > And that is a good thing about you Ham. For it is those who hide from > hurtful insights (and aren't all insights, to an extent hurtful?) live > fearful lives in hiding and never discover the real joy of life. > 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
