[MD] Objectivism and the MOQ

[PhaedrusWolff at carolina.rr.com]

Ham -- Actually, the concept gets you to third base in the ballpark of
Essentialism. To score a home run, you'll have to accept a slight
modification. The universe is not significant. The role of the 
individual
is to enable Being to become aware of Value. Human individuals are the
autonomous "beings" by which Value is realized.

Chin -- May I offer the idea that Human individuals are capable of 
being autonomous, but in the current moment are mechanistic by nature. 
By mechanistic, I would mean they satisfy their primordial instincts 
of survival, imitate through education, experience and interaction 
between others that which they are. 

There would be levels to being, and awareness of our being is not 
necessarily one of our strongest attributes. It would be rare the 
individual who actually looked beyond the mechanistic existence of 
life, and aware of the falseness of their being. 

To be autonomous may mean to be connected to the Value or Quality of 
the universe and independent of culture, religion and politics, to the 
false sense of reality which different cultures have developed. 

If my thoughts are not welcome, and you would rather I but out, let me 
know an I’ll go back to lurking. 

Chin

----- Original Message -----
From: Ham Priday <hampday1 at verizon.net>
Date: Sunday, November 12, 2006 1:53 am
Subject: Re: [MD] Objectivism and the MOQ
To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org

> 
> [Ham]:
> > But is Absolute Beingness even conceivable?   If so,
> > how do we divide it up into the finite pieces that constitute
> > existence?  Perhaps that would mean Nothing is the Creator.
> > Or, perhaps we divide it by our own nothingness?
> 
> [Laramie]:
> > Interesting.  What is the difference you have in mind between
> > "Nothing" and "nothingness", used in the last two sentences?
> 
> Empirically there is no difference; nothingness = nothing, and the 
> negate or
> Self is nothing.  Epistemologically, however, the nothing-self 
> (negate)becomes something to itself as soon as the organism senses 
> value: it becomes
> the "identity" of that value.  At that moment -- probably a late 
> stage in
> fetal development -- the Self/Other dichotomy is transformed into the
> proprietary awareness of an otherness.  Thereafter, the negate is a
> metaphysical entity known only to itself.  (It has no empirical 
> equivalent.)So, in that sense, PA is a "different nothingness" -- 
> the conscious locus of
> a being-aware.  And the object of PA is the appearance of Value as
> beingness.
> 
> [L]:
> > Self-awareness, intellection, value sensibility,
> > moral judgment, and creativity are the faculties
> > the MoQ requires us to exercise in order to
> > understand it, and which were used by its author
> > in order to write it.
> 
> In order to understand the MoQ?  I submit that we use these 
> faculties to
> construct existential reality.  And the exercise of these 
> faculties is not a
> "requirement" of any philosophy, but the inherent response of the 
> embodiednegate (individual identity) to the Value perceived.
> 
> [L]:
> > IMNSHO, the role of the individual is to enable the
> > universe to become aware of itself, and to become
> > an expression of it.
> 
> Let's see -- IMNSHO -- could that be "In-My-Not-So-Humble-Opinion"?
> Is that my clue that you're not about to modify this assertion?
> 
> Actually, the concept gets you to third base in the ballpark of
> Essentialism.  To score a home run, you'll have to accept a slight
> modification.  The universe is not significant.  The role of the 
> individualis to enable Being to become aware of Value.  Human 
> individuals are the
> autonomous "beings" by which Value is realized.
> 
> Someone here recently quoted an anonymous source that stated: "My 
> mind is
> not in my body; my body is in my mind."  This is very true.  Not 
> only my
> body but the entire universe is in my mind; it is the being of my 
> existence,my identity.  The universe is no more than mental images 
> constructed by the
> intellects of "beings-aware" like you and me to represent the 
> values we
> perceive.  Metaphysically, the objects of existence are what is 
> left over
> when their values have been selectively acquired by the subject.
> 
> Allah willing, I'll be running additional Value Page essays in the 
> future to
> explain the dynamics of value sensibility in more detail.
> 
> Cheers,
> 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/
>