[MD] for Ham, Arlo interjects

[Joseph Maurer]

On 2/15/08 12:25 PM, "Joseph Maurer" <jhmau at sbcglobal.net> wrote:

> On Tuesday 12 February 2008 11:46 PM Ham writes to Joe:
>  
> 
>> Ham, evolution is not a word you like.  Does that mean it is >unreal?  If I
>> speak in terms of destruction, and I say >³throwing the baby out with the
>> bathwater² I don¹t like that
>> very much.  But it can happen! The baby ³social system² should >not be
>> irrelevant.
>  
> [Ham]
> I accept evolution as process or change in time, which is the mode of human
> experience.  I do not view it as a metaphysical principle, however, because in
> the perspective of an immutable Essence there is no change.
>  
> [Joe]
> Since I have to look at what I experience to explore a metaphysics to describe
> it, I assume that metaphysics is a part of an inner conscious experience.  An
> Œimmutable essence¹ is not part of my inner or outer experience, and I would
> have to appeal to my Faith as a third level of experience.  It is my Faith and
> unfortunately I cannot communicate it to another except in dogmatic terms.  In
> My Opinion dogmatic terms bypass the intellect, dismissing its validity. The
> words used to express dogma are only analogies for what the person believes.
> What is the difference between Œanalogies¹ and Œthe mode of human experience¹?
>  
>  
> [Ham]
> The point of your "throwing the baby out with the bathwater" analogy escapes
> me. I've used this expression in connection with the post-modern tendency to
> trash every idea that has gone before, particularly any theory that is tainted
> with spirituality or a transcendent source.
>  
> [Joe]
> I was only trying to point out that analogies are useful for communication
> even at a metaphysical level as the inner person has at least some sense of
> what is being said. The metaphor of an ³immutable essence² does not ring a
> bell in me.
>  
> [Ham]
> Presumably, you mean that a society develops and matures in the same way that
> an individual does, that history is important to both.  Evolution is a
> principle of nature that has special interest to the historian,
> anthropologist, or biologist, but I don't see it as essential to a philosophy
> whose primary focus is the nature of man's reality.  That existence is a
> system in which everything experienced is in transition is a given.  But it is
> the end goal that we aspire to, and value has that end as
> its object.
>  
> [Joe]
> Metaphysics cannot be contradictory to other intellectual disciplines.  I do
> not see that ³immutable essence² supports these disciplines except as a given.
> For myself I accept other givens like ³levels² in ³laws of order² and ³laws of
> manifestation² in describing consciousness.  Your ontology ³Essence,
> nothingness, existence² is like a ³law of manifestation².
>  
> [Ham]
> You say that the "baby social system" should not be irrelevant.  Perhaps not.
> But to argue endlessly over whether intellect began with the caveman, the
> ancient Greeks, or the Enlightenment sheds little light on how we create our
> reality and what role values play in human experience.  Again, I accept the
> fact that individuals interact socially, communicate collectively, and work
> toward common goals.
>  
> [Joe]
> I agree.
>  
> [Ham]
> But I don't agree that the ability to think and form concepts is derived from
> language or is dependent on some extracorporeal realm called the social or
> intellectual level. Thoughts and ideas are the products of individual minds,
> and verification by consensus would be meaningless if there were no ideas to
> verify.
>  
> [Joe]
> I don¹t agree that ³individual minds² are found in the soul part of a
> body-soul division based on a division of existence into an intentional and
> real existence, the subjective without value, objective view of Aristotle.
>  
>> IMO the Osocial system¹ is created when an individual >perceives that the
>> anguish of emptiness found in proprietary >awareness (consciousness) is quite
>> unbearable. Only that >hunger for celebrity can lead to SOL, the intellectual
>> entity >of law.
>  
> [Ham]
> Forgive my ignorance, Joe, but I don't what what an "Osocial system" is and
> don't recall seeing it in Pirsig's writings.
>  
> [Joe]
> ³Osocial² occurs when the mail program edits the word document and changes
> highlighting techniques.  I see your quotation marks came through just fine so
> I will try to use them to highlight something.  ³social system² is what I
> wrote. 
> 
>  
> [Ham]
> Since proprietary awareness is the only awareness we possess, if it is
> "empty", the possessor must either be asleep or not fully conscious.
>  
> [Joe]
> IMO evolution to the social level is the value of proprietary awareness.  I
> try to imagine my chagrin of being aware of my inner-outer self, yet
> completely unaware of my companion in the same way. I conclude how empty I
> would feel in that circumstance,
>  
> [Ham]
> I'm also completely mystified by your last statement.  "Hunger for celebrity"
> leads to intellectual understanding?  I guess that explains why the younger
> generation seeks the advice of rock singers and movie stars on what
> politicians to vote for.
>  
> [Joe]
> I was using Pirsig¹s insight into ³celebrity² as a dynamic movement in the
> social level to argue for ³celebrity² as the need or hunger for movement to a
> new level, SOL. 
>  
> Regards,
> Ham
> 
>  
> 
> Regards 
> 
> Joe
> 
> 
> 
> On 2/12/08 11:44 PM, "Ham Priday" <hampday1 at verizon.net> wrote:
> 
>> Greetings, Joseph --
>> 
>> 
>>> Ham, evolution is not a word you like.  Does that mean it is unreal?
>>> If I speak in terms of destruction, and I say ³throwing the baby out
>>> with the bathwater² I don¹t like that very much.  But it can happen!
>>> The baby ³social system² should not be irrelevant.
>> 
>> I accept evolution as process or change in time, which is the mode of human
>> experience.  I do not view it as a metaphysical principle, however, because
>> in the perspective of an immutable Essence there is no change.  The point of
>> your "throwing the baby out with the bathwater" analogy escapes me.  I've
>> used this expression in connection with the post-modern tendency to trash
>> every idea that has gone before, particularly any theory that is tainted
>> with spirituality or a transcendent source.
>> 
>> Presumably, you mean that a society develops and matures in the same way
>> that an individual does, that history is important to both.  Evolution is a
>> principle of nature that has special interest to the historian,
>> anthropologist, or biologist, but I don't see it as essential to a
>> philosophy whose primary focus is the nature of man's reality.  That
>> existence is a system in which everything experienced is in transition is a
>> given.  But it is the end goal that we aspire to, and value has that end as
>> its object.
>> 
>> You say that the "baby social system" should not be irrelevant.  Perhaps
>> not.  But to argue
>> endlessly over whether intellect began with the caveman, the ancient Greeks,
>> or the Enlightenment sheds little light on how we create our reality and
>> what role values play in human experience.  Again, I accept the fact that
>> individuals interact socially, communicate collectively, and work toward
>> common goals.  But I don't agree that the ability to think and form concepts
>> is derived from language or is dependent on some extracorporeal realm called
>> the social or intellectual level.  Thoughts and ideas are the products of
>> individual minds, and verification by consensus would be meaningless if
>> there were no ideas to verify.
>> 
>>> IMO the Osocial system¹ is created when an individual perceives
>>> that the anguish of emptiness found in proprietary awareness
>>> (consciousness) is quite unbearable. Only that hunger for celebrity
>>> can lead to SOL, the intellectual entity of law.
>> 
>> Forgive my ignorance, Joe, but I don't what what an "Osocial system" is and
>> don't recall seeing it in Pirsig's writings.  Since proprietary awareness is
>> the only awareness we possess, if it is "empty", the possessor must either
>> be asleep or not fully conscious.  I'm also completely mystified by your
>> last statement.  "Hunger for celebrity" leads to intellectual understanding?
>> I guess that explains why the younger generation seeks the advice of rock
>> singers and movie stars on what politicians to vote for.
>> 
>> Regards,
>> Ham
>> 
>>