Hi Ham,
> John: > > Okay... and the social system depends upon the existence of individual > > subject and objects to be concrete things, in order for laws and > > regulations to take hold and have effect - i.e. government. > > Overthrowing SOM then, implies overthrowing government and how is > > that gonna happen? Not by gentle persuasion, that's for sure. > > Society depends upon individual (not 'concrete'?) identities who > collectively establish their moral standards, and ideally vote for > representatives in government who will foster those standards. (In my > opinion, the less government the better.) > > John: If that is true, that society depends upon individuals then it's equally true that individuals depend upon society. It seems to me that the social order itself is a co-dependency where neither society nor individual is fundamental. > > John: > > I agree as long as it's understood that unity is not a negation. That > is, > > the inseparable unity of subject and object does not imply a negation of > > either except as independent absolutes. > > There are no “independent absolutes”, John. John: agree. I was trying to use the term "negate" to indicate they don't exist except as in relation. Sometimes I get caught up in too-fancy rhetoric. Ham: Unity is not a negation but > separation (i.e., individuation) is. And everything in existence, > including its values, > is differentiated from every other. The human being itself is a > differentiated entity. > There can be but one Absolute Source, and it “creates” otherness by > negation. > (I use the analogy of the mountain climber who has ascended to the summit, > for > whom further progress must be by descent.) > > Ham, prev: > > I have just read a remarkable paperback by Gerald Schroeder . . . > > (You'll find my review along with a sample of Schroeder's > > argument on this week's Value Page.) > > John: > > Your link didn't work, btw. :) > > Sorry about that, because the Schroeder samples will be replaced with > another subject on Sunday. Guess I forgot the cap VP. Try it again at > www.essentialism.net/ValuePage.htm. > (I tested this version on the draft copy and it worked.) > > John: Yup. Got it. > Ham, continued: > > Scientists no longer question the intelligent design of the universe. > Some > > have called this wisdom the power of "information". I use the term > > "Essence" and liken it to the Absolute Sensibility on which existence is > > based. > > John: > > I know I've pointed this out before, Ham, but that's very similar to > > Royce's Absolute Mind from his early writings but it seems to me that > > conceptualizing a single absolute does kind of negate the relation which > > brings it to be. Dwayne Tunstall, President of the Royce Society made > this > > point at a conference I was lucky enough to attend. (they held it in my > > home town) > > Yes, there seem to be several Royce fans in this forum. John: ??? several? Royce is such an esoteric taste I'd be surprised (and delighted) to find any others. Perhaps you're misremembering my own contributions from the past. Ham: > I’m not that familiar with > the philosopher, so don’t know exactly what his appeal is. However, I am > convinced that what we call “relation” is a mental (intellectual) > construct of objective experience which derives from our sensibility to a > “value scale”, much as you have described. Human sensibility is > intrinsically relational by the laws of nature; > otherwise, we would be unable to see colors, enjoy music, localize objects, > or socialize morality. It is our individuated “minds” that make us > cognizant beings; > but the Essence of our being is neither relative nor created. > > Again, what Schroeder calls “eternal wisdom” (and Pirsig calls “Dynamic > Quality”) > is the absolute unification of Value and Sensibility. You can forget > duality and relativity in your conceptualized absolute. As autonomous and > sensible agents of Value, we provide the ‘otherness’ that completes the > cycle of negation – an external, valuistic perspective of Absolute Essence. > > Enjoy your weekend, John. > > --Ham > Thanks Ham, am in the midst of doing so. 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
