Hi there, Ron (Ant quoted) --
On Sun. April 14, 2013 at 8:30 AM, X-Acto wrote:
Keeping in mind that the individual originates from The "common good" > as
well.
This is the tangle you face in your explanation. One may not "be"
without the other out of necessity.
Rand is Often criticized for neglecting that aspect, as if she defined a
Quarter dollar in terms of one face of the coin and placed all its
meaning and value on the "heads" side and neglected the "tail" which
causes one to suspect that Rands objectivism and cult of individual
selfishness is primarilarly a reactionary response to social reform
at the beginning of the 20th century. Which explains your reactionary
attack of Ants explanation of the necessity of social values and their
consequences to an individual.
Fundamentally, everything originates from a source Pirsig calls Quality and
I call Essence. So, from a metaphysical perspective, the individual does
not arise from the "common good" (collective morality) but from the absolute
source that human beings sense as Value. I do not see this as a "tangle" so
much as removing the entrapment of subject/object relativity to reach a
basic understanding of Reality.
Ham rhetorically casts a cloud over Ant's explanation with a politically
charged:
"Ant seizes the opportunity to inject his collectivist worldview:"
For instance, subjects and objects leave no room for society.
I'm afraid - unlike the recently departed Wicked Witch of the
West(minster) - that I think it is a high quality idea to assume
that there is a society that intellectual patterns are embedded in;
that there are social rules/norms to be followed and consequences
to be had if there are not followed e.g it's bit like driving through
red lights in New York or London. It will be only a matter of
a few minutes before - if you're lucky, that the police and/or
ambulance people pick you up - you discover that this specific
social convention is worth (i..e has value) in following.
In other words, you need to address such basics first before
moving on to such things as 'Ultimate Reality'."
Ron comments:
I think Ant is simply pointing out the same tangle in meaning when the >
assertion of the Pimacy of the individual good over the common good is >
brought to task and it hints at the broader conflict in which our
explanations conflict in that MoQ accounts for the theory of evolution
in it's explanation. Something that a typical reactionary balks at.
Enough difference so that one would give question as to why you would >
want to exhibit those particular tastes here.
Why would you when this difference is almost certain to end in
negatively charged discord on most subjects.
In every meaningful discussion some negativity must arise. In this case,
the "negative discord" stems from failure to acknowledge the foundation of
physical (i.e., experiential) reality based on a Value concept. This is as
symptomatic of Pirsig's MOQ as it is of my essentialist ontology.
As for my motivation in presenting this concept ("particular tastes"?) here,
the reason is simple enough. There is an obvious parallel between these two
valuistic philosophies which deserves to be explored for the benefit of
both. What stands in the way is inflexibility on the part of the debaters.
Nothing is gained by a discussion like this unless or until the proponents
are willing to seriously consider each other's premises.
Toward that end, I merely ask that you reconcile the negatives sufficiently
to affirm the positives. You may be surprised by how much can be gained
through such an approach.
Thanks, Ron.
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
