[MD] Essentials for target practice

[Ham Priday]

Okay, John --

If you've got the time, I've got the patience.

You asked about "the aspects of existence that have no recognizable 
appearance."  How do we know that an appearance (let's call it a 
"phenomenon") has aspects unless we recognize them?  Indeed, the aspects of 
a phenomon are what make up the appearance.

Let's say you observe a round object lying on the beach.  You see that its 
surface is divided into patterned sections of red and white.  It might be a 
painted rock, you think.  Then a child comes long and kicks the object.  You 
hear a hollow thump and the object goes flying across the sand.  A rock 
would not have that resilience, nor would it so noisily be lifted into the 
air.by the action of a child's foot.  You've recognized the "aspects" of 
roundness, color, design, hollowness, elasticity, and dynamics on impact. 
Even if you've never seen a beach ball before, or heard its name, you can 
quickly deduce what kind of an object this is.

[Ham, previously]:
> 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.

The beach ball is an experiential construct whose constituents are the 
valuistic aspects enumerated above.  The child who kicks the ball 
experiences the same construct, although from a slightly different 
space/time perspective.  To construct an object presupposes a workable 
substrate that can be fashioned to create that object.  Essentialism is a 
valuistic philosophy, and we're dealing with values differentiated by the 
human sensory apparatus.

Primary Value is the realization of otherness, and the individual is the 
realizing agent.  (You can call this the individual's "aesthetic response" 
or "pre-intellectual sensibility", if you like; but "psycho-emotional 
affect" is the best epistemological term I've come up with.)  Finite values 
(the ones we experience) are derived from the value-sensibiity that is 
innate to all cognizant individuals. That experience is subjective doesn't 
mean it's "only in the mind" but that it is proprietary to the individual. 
As I tried to point out before, existence is the cumulative total of one's 
experience.

> 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.

First of all, "things don't make things"  Things are finite phenomena that 
appear, evolve or change, and disappear.  My Philosophy of Essence is 
predicated on an uncreated source which philosophers continue to regard as 
either impossible or "undefinable".  But it just so happens that an obscure 
but brilliant 15th century theologian named Cusanus postulated his first 
principle as "the not-other".  The Essence of my metaphysics is definable by 
Cusa's principle.

[Ham's examples of "provisional" conditions]:
> Time, space, finitude, dependence, life/death, being/nothing,
> contrariety, mortality, uncertainty.

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

What do you have against subjectivism, John?   Platt acquainted me with the 
subjectivist Donald Hoffman a couple of years ago, but I have since found 
Robert Lanza a more readable source on this worldview.  I have archived his 
essay "A New Theory of the Universe" on my website at 
www.essentialism.net/NewTheory.htm. and suggest that you read it.  I don't 
classify myself as a "subjectivist', but the label is more descriptive of my 
philosophy than objectivism or "logical positivism".

[Ham]:
> Cognizant awareness, feeling, knowledge, interpretation,
> intellection, and realization are proprietary to the individual.

[John]:
> 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". ...
> But I mean more than merely relational.  I mean that
> meaning and awareness are social constructs, definitely
> not proprietary to individuality.

That's because you've succumbed to Pirsig's brand of collectivism.  Ayn Rand 
wrote: "There is no such thing as a collective brain.  There is no such 
thing as a collective thought. ...no man can use his brain to think for 
another."  Again, life is an individual experience, and so are the 
sensibilities, ideas, conceptions, aspirations, and comparative judgments 
which contribute to this experience.  Sooner or later you're going to 
realize this existential truth.  I'll put my money on it.;-)

But since you already agree that "unrealized value" is an oxymoron, start 
thinking about HOW value is realized and you'll discover that we don't 
borrow it from society, cultural norms, or authority.  I'm talking about 
"values", not rote memory or behavior.  Only an individual can realize 
value.

Once you realize that individuation and difference are the fundamental 
characteristics of existence, you'll never again be seduced by collectve 
ideology,  And, as Mary often says, "The most important thing you will ever 
make is a realization "

Nice to chat with you again, John.

Essentially yours,
Ham