[MD] Essentials for target practice

[John Carl]

Ham,

John prev:


>> What about the aspects of existence that have no recognizable
>> appearance?  If you say that without appearance there is no existence,
>> I'm gonna send you back to the empiricism from whence you came.
>>
>
>
Ham:



> I presume you mean "aspects" such as quality, dynamics, relations, order,
> design, beauty, morality, desirability, importance, and sensory
> attributions.



John:

Yes, good presumption.  I didn't imagine that list exactly, but you
obviously grasp the gist of my objection.


Ham:

These are all psycho-emotional affects of value-sensibility projected by the
> self into otherness.
>
>
John:  I disagree.  Self and otherness both are constructs  whose
construction are in many important ways, derived from the aspects as you
name them.

And your "psycho-emotional affects" sounds to me like a fancy-shmancy way of
saying what everybody calls the "its only in your mind" fallacy.



> John:
>


> Appearance is subjective.
>>
>
>
Ham:


> In a word, yes.  Appearance is what we're aware of, which is subjective.
> However, neither the appearance nor the subjective awareness of it exists
> independently of a primary source.
>
>
John:  By "primary source", do you mean the "thing that made everything but
we don't have a name for" ?  Because while I sorta think Craig makes a good
point about just positing absolute creators out of thin air is silly, I do
appreciate your coming up with a much handier label for It.





>
>  5)  The primary difference is the provisional separation of
>>> proprietary sensibility from the undivided source.
>>>
>>
>> Provisional upon what?  More subjectivism.
>>
>
>
Ham:


> Time, space, finitude, dependence, life/death, being/nothing, contrariety,
> uncertainty.
>
>

John:

As I said, mere subjectivism.  "Time and space are mere constructs of the
animal mind."  - Dr. Lanza


>
>  6)  Life is an individual experience the essence of which is
>>> value-sensibility.
>>>
>>
>> Life is certainly bigger than any individual's experience.
>> This is a major "duh".
>>
>
>
Ham:


> Life is not quantifiable in terms of vastness or size.  All or ANY life is
> an individual experience.  Existence for any individual is his/her
> life-experience.



John:

An individual's existence is certainly quantifable, but life itself is not,
I agree completely.  Infinity is no quantifiable, that certainly makes it
"bigger" than any individual existence, which is.


>
>




>  7)  Cognizant awareness, feeling, knowledge, interpretation,
>>> intellection, and realization are proprietary to the individual.
>>>
>>
>> Disagree completely.  All those things are relative and arise only in
>> intersubjective comparison.
>>
>
>

Ham:


> "Relative", yes, since all awareness is dependent on otherness.
> "Intersubjective", no.
> (Possibly you meant to say "interrelational.")
>
>
John:

Perhaps you are right.  I'm thinking of a Pirsig quote I clipped out to my
desktop, on "intersubjective agreement" that describes my thinking to a
"t".  I'll try and dig it up, or find a Royce quote that supports what i
mean as well.  I'm not as eloquently learned enough to get it exactly right
on the bullseye, first arrow.

But I mean more than merely relational.  I mean that meaning and awareness
are social constructs, definitely not proprietary to individuality.





>
>>  8)  Experience is the objective representation of value realized.
>>>
>>
>> See above.
>>
>>  9)  Unrealized value does not exist.
>>>
>>
>> Hey!  I think I agree with this one.
>>
>>  10)  Man is a "free agent" in that he has the innate capacity
>>> to act in accordance with his proprietary value orientation.
>>>
>>
>> And this one.  We're on a roll now.  Except for that troublesome part
>> about
>>
>>> value being proprietary.
>>>
>>
>>  11)  All truth is relative.  Access to "absolute truth" is
>>> inimical to individual freedom.
>>>
>>
>> Truth is an idealized absolute.  An individual's apprehension of truth
>> is relative.
>>
>
> Essentially, isn't that what I'm saying?
>
>
John:

Ok,  sometimes it's hard to tell, Ham. :-)


> I do appreciate your response, John.  We need to have more discussions.
>
> Essentially yours,
>
> Ham
>
>
Well, I've got more time these days.  Always glad to discuss with you, Ham.

John