[MD] Metaphysics

[John Carl]

Mark,

I don't agree,



By your perception, or belief, John, Marsha's statement does not work,
> as you believe the subjective denies the objective.



I would say I believe the subjective is creative and affirmative of the
objective, that  there is a constructive aspect to the reality "I perceive".


This is
> similar to Ham's sensibility.  Marsha believes in the objective,
> that is, what exists both within and outside of our experience.
>


Well I might be closer to Ham than I realized, sensibility seems close
enough to whatever existence is that I could go with it.

But I don't read Marsha the way you do here.  I'd say rather that Marsha
believes in "not this, not that" a devout belief in the inability of any
intellectual pattern to capture what is.


which is a pretty good point, in itself.  But one I reject as a roller
coaster existentialist because even though all metaphysical platforms might
ultimately be incomplete, I still need SOMEthing to stand on as I wait my
turn for the ride.




> It is hard to debate when the fundamental tenants start at
> different places.  I suppose the debate should be who's
> starting point has more Quality.  A subjective viewpoint
> can be argued to be more amoral.  However, the objective
> view often tries to define morality.
>


The Quality view starts with the realization of Value - a platform for
judging separate from  either subject or object and then figures out what
works best in the moment.



> Did morality exist before man?  Is it a fundamental
> truth?  MoQ would argue that it is.
>
>
I use the word Morality as distinct from Value, that is, morality is what
arises from  man's apprehension of value - but Man's existence is dependent
upon absolute value or Quality, in it's Pirsigian/Roycean terms.




> Mark
> I still don't quite understand Marsha,
>


 It's a woman's task to always remain somewhat a mystery, and thus
instantiate in their very being the mystery of life.  Marsha does a good
job.


John