[MD] Where have all the values gone?

[David M]

Ham

or

Creation hypothesis
  Suffice it to say that the two primary essents
are "nothing" and "not-nothing".  Essentially, "not-nothing" is experiential
"beingness" (the not-nothing (or thing/object) of awareness), so that 
"nothing" is the "negate" or
emptiness of awareness.  Both of these essents are contingencies of Value;
that is, they exist by virtue of the Value of Nothing.


same thing different words, better fit to MOQ

all the best
DM




----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Ham Priday" <hampday1 at verizon.net>
To: <moq_discuss at moqtalk.org>
Sent: Friday, January 13, 2006 7:41 PM
Subject: Re: [MD] Where have all the values gone?


>
>
>
> Hey, Platt --
>
> I guess reverting to the original subject heading got my note screened out
> of your system.    Anyway, since you haven't responded to my reply to your
> 1/11 message, I'm sending it again under your heading.  (By the way, you
> must know that I'm totally empathetic with your lament over society's lost
> values.)
>
>> I'm not sure why you use "value" to describe reality if
>> the word to most people means something other than what
>> you intend it to mean. Why fight common understanding
>> of what words mean? If one is trying to persuade, isn't
>> it good practice to use words that are readily comprehended?
>
> That's exactly my complaint, Platt.  Proper and consistent word usage is
> particularly critical when an author is outlining an ontology based on
> subjective
> concepts.  This is why I continue to push for definitions that can be
> universally understood.  It becomes difficult, of course, when an author
> refuses to define what he means by a word like Quality because "everybody
> knows what it is".
>
> Unfortunately, you have misconstrued my use of the word Value, probably 
> due
> to careless explication on my part.  When I said that "Value connotes an
> essential reality that exists independently of man's experience," I did 
> not
> intend to equate Value with Absolute Reality.  Rather, I was trying to
> distinguish
> my understanding of Value from the commonly inferred meaning of Pirsig's
> Quality.
>
> This is how I define Value in my Glossary: "The conditional affinity for
> Essence whereby desire is aroused and ultimately redeemed.  That aspect of
> Essence which is differentially derivable from, and is the teleological
> object of, human experience."
>
> Now perhaps that's an inadequate definition for the "conditional essence" 
> of
> man.  The semantic problem one encounters when referring to a "derived
> essence" is to keep it distinct from Absolute Essence.  To avoid confusion
> in my thesis I've borrowed an existentialist term used by Heidegger and
> Sartre:
> "essent".  I define an essent as "one of two value-deprived essences 
> created
> by the primary negation of Essence from which existence arises."  A 
> complete
> explanation of this ontology appears in my Creation hypothesis and is too
> involved to outline here.  Suffice it to say that the two primary essents
> are "other" and "not-other".  Essentially, "other" is experiential
> "beingness" (the objects of awareness), while "not-other" is the "negate" 
> or
> subject of awareness.  Both of these essents are contingencies of Value;
> that is, they exist by virtue of the Value of Essence.
>
> I know this sounds complicated, and it requires some study; but without
> getting into the thesis itself, perhaps you can see that Value is 
> essential
> to my philosophy, not just a euphemism for "goodness", "morality",
> or a measure of what pleases us in life.  It's possible, of course, that
> I've failed to grasp the full meaning of Pirsig's Quality in the absence 
> of
> a proper definition or a formal development of his theory.  To date, 
> having
> reviewed the MoQ discussions, Pirsig's SODV paper, and McWatt's doctoral
> thesis, I'm not convinced that the MoQ's Quality is a transcendent reality
> or a derivative thereof.  If I'm wrong, perhaps someone will take me in 
> tow
> and explain why.
>
>> Philosophy would be so much more attractive to people
>> if philosophers disciplined themselves to use plain, everyday
>> English. In that regard, they would do well to follow
>> Pirsig's model.
>
> I agree with your sentiments.  But while Pirsig may be exemplary in his 
> use
> of the English language, his novels are hardly a model of metaphysical
> exposition.
>
> [Ham, previously]:
>> Since Freedom is absolute in principle, I don't believe
>> I'm inconsistent in asserting that slavery is immoral
>> by this definition.
>
> [Platt]:
>> I see no inconsistency either when it comes to slavery, but I
>> do see an inconsistency in your previous assertion that only
>> Essence is absolute and now your claim that individual
>> autonomy is an absolute principle. That makes
>> two absolutes it seems. But, I could be wrong.
>
> Well, I'll defer to the logicians on this point.  To me, an absolute
> principle is
> a universal law or maxim that applies to contingencies.  Examples: 'Act
> only according to that maxim by which you can at the same time will that 
> it
> would become a universal law'; 'Water runs downhill'; 'The sun sets in the
> west'.
> Absolute principles are capable of being violated but not invalidated.
>
>> Finally, shall I give up any hope that you might consider
>> the behavior of atoms and animals as being limited by
>> physical and biological rules much as human behavior is
>> limited by societal and intellectual rules?  In other
>> words, can you entertain the thought that morality extends
>> beyond the insular world of man?
>
> I believe there is an order to existence and a teleology by which it moves
> toward certain ends.  My objection to this being called "morality" is the
> common understanding (your cause?) of morality to mean human behavior.
> Would you accept the idea that the behavior of atoms and animals is
> a function of "intelligent design"?
>
> That would of course imply a Designer.
> Man is the "designer" of cultural morality.
> Who or what would you say is the designer of physical morality??
>
> Best regards,
> Ham
>
>
>> 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/
>
> 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/
>