[MD] epistemological first musings and poetry's recognition

[Ham Priday]

Dear John --

On Wed, Jun 10, 2009 at 4:17 PM, Ham Priday <hampday1 at verizon.net> wrote:

> No, values do not exist "outside" of a mind.

[John]:
> Ok, fair enough.  I will not spout pre-formed ideas of my own or
> anybody else's on this but simply ask you, what is your proof?
> How can you demonstrate this truth of yours, in some fashion
> (my own senses, logic, reasonable definitions of discourse) that
> no values exist outside of a mind? I honestly try and figure it out,
> and I can't.  I seem to run into some sort of intellectual limitation
> when I try to think of outside of mind.
>
> So I mostly don't.

What is there to "figure out"?  A few weeks ago, Marsha wanted me to prove 
to her that the self exists.  "Show me the self," she asked.  You said 
something about "toddlers knowing better" when I asserted that the universe 
only exists for us.  Well, if I have to prove that your self exists, maybe 
you should ask a toddler!

What do you think "self-evident" means?  If there is no self, there is no 
observer to assess the evidence, much less its value.  The Pre-Socratic 
Greek philosopher Protagoras said, "Man is the measure of all things: of 
things which are, that they are, and of things which are not, that they are 
not".  It is to man that the world is evident and it is for man to judge its 
value.

The reason you challenge subjectivity is that you've been persuaded by Mr. 
Pirsig that subjects and objects must be "overcome" in order to make Quality 
an absolute monad.  But the reality you and I participate in is not absolute 
or homogeneous.  On the contrary, its primary nature is difference.  Surely 
I don't need to prove this to you.  It's an empirical fact.

> I do try and think outside of my mind.  *A* mind might
> very well be the source of all value, quality, good and reality.
> But *my* mind is not.  My mind is just my own little thing
> over here in the corner.
>
> I guess the whole problem I have with subject-based values
> is trying to picture *this* self-centered subject as any kind
> of viable entity.

The asterisks you use for quote marks enclosing "A" mind and "my" mind 
suggest that the primary source is a Creator other than you or me.  And you 
would be correct.  In my philosophy that source is called Essence and is 
defined as the "not other" which IS.  Essence is not an existent or "thing" 
but the ultimate and immutable source of all that is.  Of course you won't 
see such a source referenced in the MoQ.  The author didn't take metaphysics 
seriously and especially didn't want to be accused of falling back on 
"supernaturalism".  Instead, the reality he explores is the experiential 
world with no creator.  He ignores the maxim 'nothing comes from 
nothingness', and explains reality as an ever-unfolding evolution toward 
"betterness" with no other purpose for man or nature.  The poetry of his 
thesis is delightful, but the logic leaves much to be desired.

> How do you define subject?  I mean, that is in essence my
> main argument through and through, you cannot metaphysically
> define an isolated subject. Subject arises in a continuous dance
> with object, seer and seen, always together.  You can't pick
> either side as The One in this dance.  I thought that was my
> problem with individual valuism Ham, I don't believe in the
> isolated individual.

The individual is a "being-aware".  It borrows from biological beingness to 
experience the otherness surrounding it.  As I said before, being-aware is 
the dichotomy of existence.  Neither contingent can exist without the other. 
In the absence of a cognizant self there is no being, and vice-versa.  The 
human individual is not isolated, but he/she is "estranged" from the 
uncreated source.  This is what makes man a free agent of value, the result 
of which actualizes a relational universe of diverse objects and events.

> 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.

It's called "solipsism", John.  But because Essentialism is founded on an 
uncreated source, only the actualized world of appearances is solipsistic. 
Some call existence an illusion, others say it's a construct of value. 
Don't be so quick to demean "toddlerhood".  Until we learn to perceive the 
world as a child does, we are caught up in our own intellectual precepts and 
lose sight of the value we are here to realize.

> Well your certainty would be reassuring if you could actually
> show me some logical support for your position.  You must have
> read ZAMM, Ham.  How do you discount that author's dismissal
> of your subjective position?

See my comments above.

> And how do you make such self-confident assertions about
> the very nature of physical existence outside of any intellect?
> That sounds to me like a very difficult hill to climb but you give
> me no reasonable grounds for your statement.  You just throw
> it out there as if it's self evident.

Exactly. The first rule of clear thinking is not to trifle with what is 
self-evident.
Or, to paraphrase Occam's razor, the simplest explanation beats out the 
complex one every time.

> Well I appreciate your thought and time, Ham.  "And that
> realization requires a sensible agent"  makes sense to me...
> there is a continuum in what you assert.  Perhaps I have
> misjudged your position.  I hope you will have time to
> respond to some of my questions here.

Always pleased to be of service to those with an inquiring mind.

Essentially yours,
Ham
>