[MD] epistemological first musings - anthropocentric

[MarshaV]

Greetings Ham,

At 02:29 PM 6/13/2009, you wrote:
>On Saturday, June 13, 2009 at 3:31 AM, Marsha wrote:
>
>
>>
>>
>>I am not interested in interrupting the flow of this dialogue,
>>but would like clarification of your use of the term 
>>'anthropocentric'. Here are three interpretations from an online dictionary:
>>
>>1.  regarding the human being as the central fact of the universe.
>>2.  assuming human beings to be the final aim and end of the universe.
>>3.  viewing and interpreting everything in terms of human 
>>experience and values.
>>
>>Suddenly 1. & 3. seem obvious (empty, but obvious).  To state 
>>otherwise would be to have knowledge outside of the human 
>>experience.  2. seems strange, though, because of the 'aim and 
>>end'.  Whose aim and whose end? Since any such definition could
>>only be of human origin, the idea seems circular.  Aim and end are
>>like purpose which make them simply a human definition or outside
>>of human knowledge.
>>
>>Do you understand my puzzlement?
>
>I understand your question, Marsha, although I've previously 
>explained "anthropocentric" to John as "regarding the world in terms 
>of man's values and experiences."   Dagobert Runes, my handy 
>philosophical reference, has this brief entry for anthropocentric: 
>"Literally, centering in man.  A term which may be used in 
>connection with extreme humanism, viewing the world in terms only of 
>human experience."
>
>As for your second interpretation, "final aim and end of the 
>universe," I would consider that a definition for "teleology" rather 
>than anthropocentrism.  While it is true that man's centrist 
>worldview is the conscious locus of his universe, this definition 
>implies that human beings are the final aim of REALITY.  I don't 
>think we can extrapolate beyond man's role in existence.  For me, 
>the purpose of being-aware is to realize Value, which is our 
>relational sense of the primary source.

Thanks for writing, it was helpful in clearing up some of the 
conflict I had with the term anthropocentric.  It doesn't seem so 
evil anymore.  I still think the best understanding of REALITY is 
found in Lila's words: "...I'm whatever your questions turn me into. 
You don't see that. It's your questions that make me who I am. If you 
think I'm an angel then that's what I am. If you think I'm a whore 
then that's what I am. I'm whatever you think. And if you change your 
mind about me then I change too. So whatever Richard tells you, it's 
true. There's no way he can lie about me."    -    Reality is 
whatever you think it is, there's no way you can lie about it, and if 
change your understanding of reality, then reality changes too.



>And, while I have the opportunity, those "ever-changing, interrelated and
>interconnected inorganic, biological, social and intellectual, 
>static patterns of value"
>that you continually refer to are what most philosophers simply call 
>"phenomena".  I define phenomena as "value constructs" actualized by 
>experience.  In the sense that man brings value into being as 
>differentiated phenomena, Essentialism is a "valuistic" 
>ontology.  Unlike Pirsig's DQ, value is not the essential source; it 
>is merely man's link to the source (Essence) from which he/she is 
>negated as a sensible creature.

Phenomena as "value construct" seems pretty like conceptually 
constructed patterns.  Dynamic Quality is indivisible, undefinable 
and unknowable; "negated as a sensible creature" goes conceptually 
too far for my comfort.  Man's link to the source has been described 
many ways, who's to say yours is best.  I find it conceptualized as 
'not this and not that'.



>Perhaps this will help to clarify my metaphysical difference with 
>Mr. Pirsig.  Have I resolved your "puzzlement", Marsha?  If not, I'm 
>adding a highly readable essay to my archives list which may clear 
>everything up. Though I wish I could take credit for it, it's by an 
>unknown author who presents Valuism as an "individual 
>philosophy".  You should be able to link to it at www.indval.org .

I read this paper the first time you suggested it, but read it 
again.  Here's a paper I like:

Time and Impermanence
in Middle Way Buddhism and Modern Physics

Talk at the Physics and Tibetan Buddhism Conference
University of California, Santa Barbara January 30-31, 1998

Victor Mansfield: [ vic at lightlink.com ]
Department of Physics and Astronomy
Colgate University Hamilton, NY 13346

http://www.buddhanet.net/timeimpe.htm


Thank you.


Marsha









_____________

"He who neglects the present moment throws away all he has."
   (Friedrich von Schiller)