[MD] Percepts and Concepts

[Ham Priday]

On 7/5/09 at 3:30 PM John Carl wrote --

> Part of acknowledging a game in good sportsmanship, is acknowledging
> one's opponent - that there must be AGREEMENT in order for the game
> to have any validity.  You can play alone, but it's not the same thing
> as philosophy.

Sporting or not, I am earnestly looking for AGREEMENT.  Frankly, I'm not 
concerned that "the game" has validity as long as we understand each other.

> You accede to the main thrust of my point by admitting you change
> your presentation according to your conception of the correspondent.
> And for me, that's what I mean  by "we're playing a game"  or "we're
> indulging in an artform".  Just to be clear upon two points you and I
> have disagreed upon.

This is a philosophy forum, not an "art form".  I adapt my presentation 
(verbally) as best I can to the correspondent's vernacular and worldview. 
The overall concept remains unchanged.

Now.
> on to the rest, best I can....
[Quoting Ham]:
>> Yes.  The first thing to understand is that all value is realized, and 
>> the
>> realizer is a subject.
>
> So the "value" I realise is something outside of myself, which "I" the
> realizer conceive of using my entire conceptual/perceptual apparatus and
> deduce from... sensory data???
>
> Is the first thing I need to understand yer basic SOM?  Cuz I get that.
> Been handed that way of thinking  basically my whole life.  Is that what
> you are offering Ham?  More of the same?

Yes, value is the realization of that which is beyond (i.e., other to) the 
self.  However, I prefer "self/other dichotomy" to Pirsig's "SOM" whose 
meaning is ambiguous to folks here.  "More of the same"?  I offer more than 
the MoQ, which is not the same.  My philosophy is based on an uncreated 
Source.  Quality and Value are perceived attributes of beingness whose 
existence depends on the subject, hence do not quality as the primary 
Source.

[Ham, previously]:
>> While survival may be a value from the human perspective,
>> biological instinct and organic response mechanisms automatically
>> serve this purpose in simple organisms.

[John]:
> "Serve this purpose" means "is valued by" in essence.  Why do you change
> terminology in the interest of confusion?  It makes me question your whole
> purpose in this game.

Why do you insist on rewording my statements to confuse the issue?  Would 
serve this "function" have made my meaning any clearer?

[Ham]:
>> Only man has the capacity to discern moral and esthetic values
>> and the freedom to choose accordingly.

> Wrong.  AND blatantly anthropocentric.  Even my dog can choose
> to go left or right.  Even my dog knows when he's doing wrong.

Do you consider this choice a moral or esthetic value?  Is the dog's 
behavior a valuistic decision at all, or only an instinctual response?  And, 
yes, Essentalism is an anthropocentric philosophy.  I'm surprised you didn't 
know that.

>> But the values that drive man's behavior are not "universal" but
>> relative to his sensibility and the situation he confronts.  Finally,
>> all values are derived from Essence,

> Or God.  Or Quality.  Or Tao.  Or the big turtle which holds the worlds
> on its back.   whatever .  They're all postulated mythos blowin' in the 
> wind
> and the only question that matters to me is "which one is best"?  Which
> pertains to the quality of one's society, eh?  The society that picks the
> best mythos wins.  Yay.

Is this how you play your game, John, by ridiculing your opponent?  If so, 
it's not worth my time and effort.  I get enough ridicule and contempt from 
Arlo and Krimel.

Go play your game in somebody else's yard.

-- Ham