[MD] Metaphysics

[markhsmit]

OK John, Gotcha,

I misinterpreted your post.  I got the impression that value can only
be sensed from within.

Not this, not that does not mean that the intellect cannot grasp
what is, because it can in Eastern philosophies.  It is more like
a rejection of SOM.  You cannot point at it.  The reason for
the double rejection is because such awareness does not
come from a logical progression.  To create a logic such
as the intellect can grasp, makes an it out of it (get it, it?)

"It hits you like a diamond bullet", as Kurtz's emissary said in
Apocalypse Now.

Mark
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
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/