[MD] MOQ and SOM

[Ham Priday]

John --


> Ok let's play this game carefully and one step at a time:
>
> Meaning - the intended value of one's conceptualizations - subjective
>
> Truth - the congruence of one's meaning to an idealized, abstract value -
> objective
>
> Values - usually contextually defined - ultimately in and of itself,
> undefinable

> Now those simple rules I laid out seem right to me.  But they cause
> havoc with your assertions above.  For instance,
>
> "What is Truth for man is what has meaning to him," is almost right,
> but not quite.  For "Truth for man"  is an objective value and "meaning
> to him" is subjective and if there is a relationship here, then it ought
> to be explicated rather than merely asserted, which is common theme
> with me to you, Ham, in this game of metaphysical logic we play.
>
> So before we go too far down this yellow brick road, let's review my
> three definitions of Meaning, Truth and Values and see if we can agree
> on these rules before we play this game.  And heed this:  I'm willing
> and even eager to play.  I just need some small agreement before
> knowing how to proceed.
> Cuz if we were to proceed willy-nilly, I'd rip ya a new one on the next
> assertion of yours....
>
> "and meaning is derived from his values rather than logic or numbers."

I'll play your "game", John, although I'm not much of a sportsman and I'm on 
record as saying that philosophy is not a game.  To treat it as such 
suggests that there is no meaning apart from what one believes.  This is a 
kind of intellectual nihilism that affects our postmodern age by denying the 
value of reality itself.  Making philosophy a game is why most of the 
questions posed on this forum never get resolved.

Your use of the word "intended" has me puzzled.  Yesterday I asked you to 
explain what you meant by "an intentional existence".  Today you speak of 
meaning as the "intended value" of one's conceptualizations.  Is there a 
distinction you are trying to make between real and intended value?  If so, 
it isn't clear to me.  I don't promote "intended" value; I talk about 
perceived (sensible) value which is the only value I know.  That I may 
"intend" for others to appreciate my concept does not impugn the reality of 
value.  Besides, hasn't Pirsig made it clear that value (Quality) is neither 
subjective nor objective?  I would say the same goes for "meaning" and 
"truth", although you apparently disagree.

All three of your terms are perceived or consciously apprehended principles. 
They exist only in conscious awareness, yet they apply to the experiential 
world.  Like everything else in existence, Meaning, Truth and Value are 
caught up in the self/other dichotomy, hence neither exclusively subjective 
nor objective.

As for my question, why do we need a hierarchy, you responded:

> We need levels as an explanatory concept for dealing with our world of
> differences. Levels are differentiated patterns and probably synonomous
> with the concept "difference", if you think about it.

Personally, I don't view Inorganic, Biological, Social, and Intellectual as 
"patterns", but as categories of natural or evolutionary function that have 
historical interest within certain scientific or academic communities. 
Where is the mystical "path" that relates these four categories specifically 
to a unified understanding?  Are they more unique in this respect than, say, 
Earth, Air, Fire, and Water?  Or Energy, Force, Mass and Velocity?

> It wouldn't help at all if the division is arbitrary.  If the division is
> done with an accurately wielded analytic knife, then it can be a
> tremendous help in realizing the deeper unity.  Otherwise, what
> the heck are we even doing here?   I'd say what Needleman's
> quote is about is that the quality of that knife wielding is what
> constitutes the quality of one's Path.

I just don't understand how this kind of reductionism -- categorizing 
natural functions and adding them to an already differentiated universe --  
provides a path to a "deeper unity".  For me the primary difference between 
the observing self and its objective reality is far more significant and 
metaphysically meaningful than parsing arbitrary levels.

> Well "the only difference we need" means to me that you think that the
> highest quality knife-wielder is the one that makes one slice and that's 
> it.
> I like a little more artistic variety than that. You want to cut down the
> tree and call it a totem.   Boring.  Especially if all you're gonna do is
> separate subjective and objective and call the whole thing done.

Philosophy is not an art form, either.  It takes but one slice of the knife 
to create difference.  Why compound it endlessly with conceptual constructs? 
We all know what existential Difference is.  Why not establish what 
fundamental Reality is?

[Ham]:
> How can humans adapt nature to his needs without exploring its dynamics
> and physical principles and applying them to his society?  Isn't this the
> method by which mankind achieves material progress?  Why should this
> pose a threat to humanity?

[John]:
> Because it is not the purpose of life for man to adapt nature to man's
> needs.  I assert that man's purpose in life is to adapt himself to what is
> good.   Here's another couple of definitional rules for you in
> "my/provisionally our" game:
>
> Good:  What is best for the whole

What you've defined is Plato's "common good" -- the summum bonum.  It leads 
to socialism, communism, and fascism.  Man doesn't know what is best for the 
whole.  The "best" he can do is champion life, liberty, and the pursuit of 
happiness for all.

> Right:  What is best for me.

That's John Carl's maxim.  What is best for you isn't necessarily best for 
me.

> Thanks for playing so far Ham,

And what if I don't accept your definitions??

--Ham