[Ham] If you make the object of experience your primary reality, then you and your
subjective sensibility are derived from it, and "the data" are more fundamental than the experience. That's not how the process works. The physical aspects of existence have their basis in the valuistic sensibility of the subject. [Krimel] One more time: I have said unequivocally, I thought that my primary experience is subjective. Out of my personal experience the relationships of subjectivity and objectivity emerge. The physical aspects of the world are opaque to me as I have only my sense impressions as guides. [Krimel]: > Intrinsic or not these laws, the stuff we can say about nature, > are not arbitrary either. We don't just make them up. They must > withstand scrutiny. What we can say about them is limited by > how well experience conforms to our descriptions and visa versa. [Ham] Why should experience conform to a "description"? On the contrary, our objective description of reality comes from our observation of it, which is experience. [Krimel] Note the visa versa above. Experience does not necessarily conform to my descriptions but my descriptions should apply to experience. If they do not I need to change them. It is through this process of trial and error that we form our world views. [Krimel]: > Just saying that something "has to be fundamental" does not > make it so. Why is anything like this "required"? > You say it is, but not why. [Ham] The nihilist who rejects a primary source denies his own essence as well. [Krimel] And a rank speculator who prattles on in profound sounding meaningless drivel is just fooling himself. [Ham] Resemblance is a corollary of difference, just as evil is a corollary of morality. We live in a differentiated world of contrasts and relations because it is a finite manifestation of Essence divided by Nothingness. [Krimel] I recommend a thorough reading of some more of Lao Tsu's "poetry" if you really want to get a handle on the union of opposites. [Ham] The idea that things are "essences" is a platonic misconception. There is no such thing as a differentiated Essence. Essence is absolute and indivisible. We are sensible only of the value of Essence, and we break this value down into the objects of our experience. If you make "sensation" primary to essence, you have a subject without an object -- an effect without a cause -- which is illogical. [Krimel] Turns out the example of family resemblances came from Wittgenstein. Essence even as you use it is a confused notion. It comes from our ability to construct ideal models in our heads. To confuse these models with the real world or to give the real world secondary status because of them is the height of human arrogance. [Ham] You are an objectivist who speaks the language of Science. Metaphysics is not now, nor was it ever, "testable". It is precisely this "modern usage" of objective data that has blinded us to philosophical enlightenment. [Krimel] I know you are but what am I? Metaphysics that are not testable are irrelevant. It is just snake oil. Philosophical enlightenment? OMG is that a joke or something? Is that what you actually think you are selling? Honey, please... As for Lanza I warned you about hitching you horse to that wagon. It is heading down the wrong path, my friend. > [Krimel]: > The present era is a dangerous time precisely because > we are losing our ability to forget. [Ham] That statement makes no sense to me. [Krimel] Then you should reflect hard on it. Our memory is augmented by our ability to store the past in a variety of formats. Consider that 100 years ago if you wanted a picture of your wife someone had to draw it. If you wanted to listed to a song someone had to sing it. Think about Charlie Chaplin. Even his silent movies give us more sense of Chaplin the man than all that has been written about Caesar. Or take Mickey Rooney we have a pretty compete record of his progress through life from childhood to old age recorded in film. This kind of record has never existed in history before. We can not forget Mickey and Judy Garland as children "putting on a show." We can not forget Mickey as an evil old security guard in "Night at the Museum". Mickey's deeds are recorded in our collective memory and anyone can access it. [Ham] Another quotation from Ecclesiastes, demonstrating that the objectivist is at heart a nihilist. With such a mindset, philosophy will never broaden your perspective. [Krimel] It's ok to admit it, Ham. We all find death scary. 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.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
