[MD] Intellectual and Social

[X Acto]

On Wed, Jan 13, 2010 at 6:20 AM, Krimel <Krimel at krimel.com> wrote:

John,
> You act like you expect Arlo or I to provide you with basic science
> education.


John the well rested replies:

What I expect, on a philosophical forum, is some backbone to your
assertions, postulations and beliefs.  When you offer me "Nova", I have to
pause and laugh my ass off and totally deride you because the assumption
that the highest quality intellectual cosmology will be found in an
understandable tv program just has that effect upon me, almost against my
will.

I can't help it.  I'm an existentialist.

How Existentialism instantiates in this particular discussion, is that it
really doesn't make any difference, to me here in my "now" whether the world
came into being at the behest of Zeus, Krimel/Avatar-Case's probabilistic
encapsulations or Robert M. Pirsig's creative hand.  Whatever.

I deem all such postulations as composed of varying degrees of intellectual
baggage, all of
which, I don't need.

What matters to me is how it affects me now.

What matters to you, from what you've said so far, is that you get
recognized as an expert authority based upon the quality of tv shows you
watch.

I'm more interested in postulations about  the projected future, than pet
postulations of the past.  Postulations of the future are more interesting
because they invite actual creative possibility.  The past is gone.


You do inadvertently bring up a good point though, about the transferal of
intellectual values through a socially controlled media.  You trust Nova,
you say.  You have empirical reasons in your head for doing so, all the
interesting insights gleaned over the years and put into your head.  It's
addicting, I'm sure.



An Existentialists recognizes  the good in the now.  That's all.  It's as
simple as can be.  What direction does my moral compass nudge me in the
moment.  I know something does, but I can't define it or capture or control
it.  Pirsig postulates rhetorically and Royce deduces dialectically this
moral force at the basis of all being, and I've encountered other good
thinkers on this list who have nurtured and realization of this in the
moment, which gives me a different perspective than you.

Ron;
Yet some others contend that recognizing the good in the now requires
the memory of the experience of the past. They posit that what makes 
"being" possible is a complex relationship of memory of value experiences.
An interesting idea. Which to me indicates an explaination that without
memory, value would not exist. Perhaps they are the same from a
certain point of view.
Without memory there would be no value, without value there would be no
memory.
So to ask a question of "are they the same" is not the same as asking 
what does it mean to equate the two.