[MD] the meaning Hobbes's meaning

[Ham Priday]

Dear Marsha --


> The self is an ever-changing, collection of interrelated and 
> interconnected, inorganic, biological, social and intellectual, static 
> patterns of value responding to Dynamic Quality.  I think
> this addresses the individual as a conventionally convenient, 
> user-friendly, useful concept, but Ultimately empty of independent 
> (inherent) existence.  The conventional self, which is a collection of 
> spovs, is an entity built totally of value/morality, and its interaction 
> with Dynamic Quality (unrealized value) is valuing.
> So sure, I don't see a problem with calling the conventional self
> a value-agent.  But maybe I'm misunderstanding your question.

This is the rote definition you recite every time the "self" is mentioned. 
The problem I have with "a collection of patterns" is that it doesn't add up 
to self-awareness in the proprietary or subjective sense.  The earth is a 
collection of patterns, too, and so is a patchwork quilt; but in no way do 
these objects have sensibility or awareness.  Nor does "convenient, useful 
concept" help to establish the identity of selfness.  It seems to me that 
such descriptions are a foil to discourage the realization of subjectivity 
which is the fundamental locus of existential reality.

If the 'I' which observes this reality were a collective aggregate, there 
would be no continuity of self from one moment to the next.  Instead of 
"this is what I am," we would have to say "THESE are what I am ... WE feel, 
WE think, WE exist."  Since none of the constituents you have cited is the 
true "Me", I become a "second or third person."  But we are all "first 
persons" in that no other individual can share our unique reality 
perspective.  An spov is but a single isolated sentence in the novel of life 
that has lost its coherency.

That said, I accept your premise that the subjective self is not an 
independent existent.  It subsists in an otherness that we call "being" but 
which is actually our own construct of Value.  Yet, without 
value-sensibility we could not construct being or the reality of our 
existence.  Thus, the illusion of individuated being-aware IS our reality. 
We exist to realize Value -- to bring it into the world as being.  But the 
individual self is more than a dialectical "convention" or an abstract 
concept.  It is the fundamental agency of existential reality.

I've said before that there is no such thing as "unrealized value".  Without 
the realization of Value by a sensible agent, existence collapses.  To posit 
Quality or Value as independent of sensibility, let alone the
primary force of the universe, is an absurdity.  Quality or Value doesn't 
divide itself into levels and patterns; that's what man's intellect does. 
The primary division of existence is between subjective sensibility and 
objective otherness.  Illusionary or not, we can't escape this reality as 
individuated selves.

Thanks for addressing my question, Marsha.  I affords me the opportunity to 
explain what Essentialism has in common with the MoQ, as well as where we 
part.

Cordially,
Ham