[MD] epistemological first musings and poetry's recognition

[Hampday1]

Welcome back Nick [Marsha quoted] --


The reincarnation of 'Adirondak Spirit' as 'Blue-jay Maple' has generated 
more posts than I can track.  Whatever it was that charged you up during the 
past six months has returned you to us with a vengeance.  Your motives are 
right, and this Non-Aggressive Principle of yours would have some merit if 
everyone lived by it.  Alas, the world is populated by a host of 
neo-Neanderthals who don't give a hoot for morality or human life, and would 
just as soon murder you and your family if it served their purpose.

Besides, while the NAP issue may be relevant to morality, it has 
side-tracked the philosophy discussion. For example, I'm surprised you let 
Marsha get away with this statement:

[Marsha]:
> "Liberty" and "justice" are intellectual patterns, conceptual
> constructs, that last within the mind for a few nanosecond, yet
> they can mistakenly be objectified as having an independent
> existence.

You were so obsessed with the NAP doctrine that you responded "Ok.  But this 
doesn't mean I need to go out and initiate physical coercion upon other 
people does it Marsha?"

Freedom, Liberty, and Justice are values.  Do you believe values are 
"intellectual patterns" that we can't sense or feel without intellect?  Is 
the joy you experience from a walk in the woods something you have to 
conceptualize about?  Are peace and beauty not directly sensed as an 
immanent part of your awareness?

Last week I ran an essay by an anonymous author on my Values Page which 
relates to subjective value.
Here's an excerpt that makes my point:

"Something cannot be valued without a consciousness.  It makes no sense to 
say that anything is valued objectively because if there is no subject, 
there can be no preference for anything.  The act of charity cannot be found 
to be good without a mind any more than the smell of a flower can be found 
to be pleasant without a nose.  Unfortunately, most people are reared to 
believe the opposite. They are taught that value is defined by some 
impersonal standard that one is supposed to have or find.  Such a standard 
cannot exist.  Value is a property that exists within minds. Something can 
be valued by some people in the world, nobody in the world, or even everyone 
in the world, but there cannot be a value that is "objective," "necessary," 
or "a priori."  In other words, there cannot be anything that is desirable 
to, and independent of, every possible point of view."   -- [The Philosophy 
of Individual Valuism, www.indval.org .]

Unfortunately, by insisting that Quality and Value are "intellectual 
patterns", the Pirsigians render it impersonal, objective, and universal in 
nature.  In other words, they deny that value is realizable only by
a sensible agent without whom neither value nor quality would exist.  Are 
you comfortable with that concept, Nick?

Anyway, nice to see you back.

Essentially yours,
Ham