[MD] the meaning Hobbes's meaning

[MarshaV]

Greetings Ham,

Agreeing?  Disagreeing?  Just words!


Marsha




At 01:47 PM 3/7/2009, you wrote:
>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
>
>
>Moq_Discuss mailing list
>Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
>http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
>Archives:
>http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
>http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/

.
_____________

Shoot for the moon.  Even if you miss, you'll land among the stars.........
.
.