[MD] epistemological first musings and poetry's recognition

[Ham Priday]

John --


[Ham, quoting essay on Valuism]:
> "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'."

[John]:
> The way it seems to me is that judgement is a property of mind that is
> about values that exist "outside" of a mind.  If the values themselves 
> were
> intrinsic to mind, there would be nothing to think "about".  Even in a
> solidly S/O oriented mindset that seems obvious.

No, values do not exist "outside" of a mind.  If something is of value, it 
is desired or preferred by a subject, the agent of value.  If the value is 
negative or undesirable, it is the subject who avoids it.  Can you name 
something whose value is unrealized by a subject?

> How can you logically assert something doesn't exist BECAUSE you
> don't see it.  It seems to me the best you could do is assert that there 
> is
> no way to verify non-self-aware reality.  To actually go all the way and
> say the world disappears when you close your eyes is something most
> humans outgrew in toddlerhood.

If I don't know it, it doesn't exist for me.  If no one knows it, it doesn't 
exist -- period.  Pirsig was right on this one.  He said, if a thing is not 
valued it doesn't exist.  Are you contradicting Pirsig?

[Ham, previously]:
> I don't see valuation as an "intellectual pattern" but as the human 
> ability
> to realize value "pre-intellectually" (to use Pirsig's term).  And where
> there is individual subjectivity there must also be objective experience.
> It's the self/other dichotomy that characterizes existence.

 [John]:
> I agree with your last sentence completely.  Subject and Object are
> inseperable from each other and pretty much the way we talk and think.
> Great intellectual tools that we'd be foolish to cast aside.

Call them "intellectual tools", if you want, John.  But S/O is the way we 
sense the world.  This dualism doesn't require "intellect" because it is the 
very nature of physical existence.  To pretend that subjects and objects 
don't exist for the sake of a philosopher/poet is sheer foolishness.

My point, however, is that Essentialism is a valuistic philosophy, whereas 
the MoQ is neither valuistic nor "qualitative" because of its collectivist 
epistemology which rejects the subject.  Value exists as a "realization" --  
specifically, the realization that there is something greater than one's 
self-awareness.  And that realization requires a sensible agent as its 
subject.

Thanks for allowing me to express this viewpoint, John.

--Ham