Hi Mark --
On Tues. 12/13/11 at 1:32 PM, Mark "118" <[email protected]> wrote:
Hi Ham,
As always, we differ slightly in our philosophies, and I do not want
to belabor that difference. I present some reply below simply as my
opinion on the subject.
I appreciate your well thought out replies, and they force me to find
better ways to express my philosophy which in turn takes me to new
levels. For this I thank you.
[Concerning Ham's objection to the double-negative applied to attitudes]:
Quite honestly I do not see much difference. Your double negation
seems to me to be no different from our "pulling out" from essence
that which delivers value. Excluding an exclusion (double negate)
takes us right back to "realizing" value from the all inclusive
Essence of potentiality. In common parlance this is called
"Creation".
If a politician is an anti-anti-conservative it means he does not
associate himself with the anti-conservative movement. It does not
necessarily mean that he is a moderate. It just means that he is
against the stand of the anti-conservatives. If one is opposed to
opposition, it means that he does not believe that opposition is the
correct way to deal with things. Of course this is illogical semantic
nonsense, like "understanding our understanding". ...
[On Ham's concept of individual control in our world]:
I prefer the term adaptation, since it provides a more realistic
picture in my view. I can ask you, do we have control of our destiny?
If so, how? Do we have control over how our brain works? If so,
what part of the brain controls the rest of the brain? If our brain
is in control, then what controls it? I am not pointing to a world we
can only experience like a movie, I am questioning your sense of
control. From where does this control emanate? If it is spiritual,
where is the connection between the spiritual and the material?
That is, how does the spiritual become material?
Who or what controls our destiny if not the individual himself? Of course
you can say that luck and genetic endowment play a part, but in principle
our behavior is not programmed by physical laws or the will of gods; rather,
it exercises the intention of our subjective self, which in turn reflects
our proprietary value-sensibility.
[Mark previously questioning the term relative as it pertains to
relativism of existence]
OK, I was caught up in Relativism. I did a google search on relative
and copied the first hit that came up and pasted the first three
definitions:
rel·a·tive, adj.
1. Having pertinence or relevance; connected or related.
2. Considered in comparison with something else: the relative quiet of
the suburbs.
3. Dependent on or interconnected with something else; not absolute.
I was using the second definition, which is what I believe Relativism
uses, that is, your existence is compared to somebody elses existence.
We don't need to parse definitions to affirm the relativity of existence,
Mark. Every thing in the universe is related to every other thing in some
way. And we exist relative to the existence of other people and their
experiences. It is this relationship that accounts for our knowledge of
reality as a co-relational system of subjects, objects and events. That's
what makes finitude "universal".
Above you stated "very little is universal truth" which we can deal
with that at a later date since this has an impact on Essentialism. I
am curious on your use of the word "little". This word is a can of
worms, let's go fishing some time!
What I said was that "because Value is relative to the sensibility of the
observer, very little of what we know can be considered 'universal truth'."
What we "think we know" (one's personal worldview) is often in conflict with
empirical facts (the scientific worldview). Which then, you may ask, is
"universal truth"? My answer is -- neither. Universality itself is
empirical in that it excludes subjective knowledge. In other words, all
known truth relates to Finitude; only Absolute Truth is philosophically
meaningful, and that is embodied in the Essence from which Difference is
derived.
[Ham on the direct correlation between our assumptions and living
experience]:
We get our "assumptions" from living experience. Even the laws of
math and logic are derived experientially. The only "proof" we can
ascertain is from those axioms that work. It's the scientific approach
to knowledge that we call objective pragmatism. I'm not sure exactly
what you're trying to prove here, but existentiality does provide a
reliable and consistent "ground to work from", despite the relational
differences in human perception.
Ham, do you really think you get your assumptions from living
"experience"? What "experience" do you have that the existential
philosophers, that you like to bring in, "existed"? You assume that
this is the case (of course this is quite healthy for such structure
you emanate). What "experience" do you have that the earth travels
around the sun? I would claim that most of your assumptions have
been handed down to you through the written word, or some elderly
tale. Living experience has provided very little to you in the academic
setting except for faith in what you read. Again, I am not saying
that you are incorrect to place much value on these things that are
"passed along to you". But, most of it is in your head.
The laws of math are NOT derived experientially. Perhaps you are
thinking of counting bushels of hay or something. I am speaking of
math, not its application. The math of physics is very different from
pure math. In set theory, what is the experience of "the set of all
sets?" Please point to that for me. What is the experience of
infinity? I have yet to bump into it in a dark alleyway. I have yet
to see 1+1=2 on my hikes through the mountains, and I have
looked under every rock. How is it that I can pragmatically
experience that? It does not exist outside of our heads.
I don't know anything about "set theory" or "the experience of infinity",
but I do know that numbers and our numerical system developed from the
experience of counting units and intellectualizing quantitative
relationships. Anyway. you have just proved my point: pragmatic truth is
relative.
[Mark in defense of Science]:
Yes, I claim to be a scientist only because I make a living at it. I
also claim to be many other things. I claim to be what I express or
emanate. For that is my Quality. All of what you present above is a
subjective interpretation of that which is "relative" to you. How do
you separate yourself from what you determine? How is it that what
you experience with your mind in your "physical properties evaluation"
is different from what you experience with your mind in terms of
metaphysics? You yourself said that knowledge is particular to the
knower. Does some knowledge somehow become unparticular?
What I experience is relational (i.e., empirical) knowledge. What I intuit
"with my mind" is not knowledge per se, but conceptions having to do with
the Reality we can't know experientially. This, too, is particular
(relative) to me, and while I claim no universal "proof" of its validity, I
believe it may be meaningful to others, like yourself, who are seeking what
some call "higher knowledge".
[Mark defending his charge that Ham is "caught up in the dogmatic structure
of the 21st century"]:
Yup! All this talk of pragmatic knowledge and how science is devoid
of subjectivity. It seems to me that you are. You are happy with
making objects out of everything and labeling them all with words as
if that is what knowledge is all about. I see a cluttered mind (mine
is cluttered too, and I am currently using the maid service provided
by MoQ).
Please don't get me wrong, Mark. I have a B.S. myself, and greatly respect
Science and the folks who work in its various disciplines. Indeed, the
scientific method is the most rational and pragmatic approach to empirical
knowledge every devised. However, the human psyche is not empirical, nor
are value-sensibility, desire, emotions, freedom, morality, or metaphysics.
All I'm saying is that Science is not equipped to deal with such phenomena,
although they happen to be fundamental to our core beliefs.
I realize you are in the formative stage of developing a philosophy of your
own, and I've tried to make allowances for some of the thoughts you've
posted. So far, however, they don't add up to what I could recognize as a
cogent cosmology. Perhaps that's because you're trying to frame your
analogies in a scientific context (Psychology, for example) or are
struggling to conform to the language of Qualityism. In any case, I would
encourage you to articulate any original ideas that support the overall
structure of your worldview. That way, I will be better able to see where
you're heading.
Again, good luck and enjoy the season.
--Ham
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
