[MD] in defence of the "relative"

[John Carl]

>
> Hey, John --
>
> [Ham, previously]:
>
>
>
>  Existence is a relational system, as I have pointed out many times.
>> Difference is its primary characteristic.
>
>

> Since I'm a strong believer in value preferences, I don't see that we have
> a major disagreement.
>
> I didn't say "difference" was the fundamental reality, but only that it is
> the "primary characteristic" of existence.



Oh, I see.  A man who is careful with his word.  I like that.  Except now
I'll have to think hard about the difference (or my preference) between
"primary characteristic of existence" and "fundamental reality";  after all,
fundaments and primarys both mean "first things" and "existence" and
"reality" are also very similar so it's not an easy task to untangle them
from each other to see what you mean.



> Indeed, there must be difference in order to have a preference.



However, you must have a pre-thought out preference first in order to see
the difference.  Differences are not all that fundamental.  For instance, I
don't see a difference between existence and reality, but you, evidently do.
 Thus your preferences dictate the differences you see.



> When you exercise a preference, you are freely choosing the value of one
> thing relative to others.  Physical forces like gravity and magnetism have
> nothing to do with free choice because the objects that are "pulled" by
> these forces are not making preferences.  It isn't gravity that attracts you
> to a beautiful woman or draws you to a sumptuous dish.  It's your value
> sensibility.  Furthermore, your preferences are likely to be different than
> mine, which indicates that values are relative to the individual who
> responds to them.
>

Values Relativism!  Danger! Danger!  Danger!    I'd say rather that
individuals are relative to the values which define them.  This is usually
where we part ways, Ham.  I say Value is absolute and you say the individual
is.  That pretty much sums up the conflict between the Moq and SOM, eh?



>
> Now, I do agree that Value is the essence of all experience and the copula
> between awareness and being.  That makes it fundamental to being-aware,
> which is the nature of our existence.  So, in that sense, Value is what
> actualizes the phenomena that we perceive as a differentiated, relational
> world.
>

So says you from your armchair-centered existence.



> I suspect that we're arguing over semantics here, rather than metaphysical
> principles.  Like everything else in existence, my conception of reality is
> relative to my values and will be expressed in those terms. Nonethless, I am
> still able to relate to your values and concepts.  So our worldviews can't
> be all that irreconcilable, can they, John?  .
>


Well our worldview is the construction of a moment, but our being continues
on with choice.  So our worldviews might be irreconcilable now, but our
beings are working toward harmonious unity and it is this goal which defines
existence, not our differences. That's the absolute idealism in me
speaking.