[MD] Essentials for target practice

[John Carl]

Finally Ham,

It's a sunday morn with enough time on my hands to respond as thoughtfully
to your post as I'm able, and you deserve:


> [John]:
>>
>>
>>
>> I believe the analogy of the organism is apropos for the cosmos.
>> "For it's own sake" implies also, for the sake of it's parts as well.
>>
>
>
Ham:


> That would be an accommodation to natural evolution (or Pantheism, if you
> were so inclined.)  The problem with this analogy is that it denies freedom
> to the value agent.  The individual cannot be free if his behavior is not
> allowed to conflict with the physical laws of the universe.



John:

Like a clown walking on his hands?

This seems to me an overly restrictive definition of freedom.  I'm free to
lay on my bed or walk into the kitchen.  I'm not free to do both at the same
time as this would conflict with the physical laws of the universe.  But
somehow, this fact doesn't deter my sense of freedom.  Freedom arises in
consciousness.  Even in a prison, we can be free in our minds and our
imagination is not restricted to the physical laws of the universe.

I am somewhat inclined to a pantheistic view because I see the truest
expression of any creator or source as most clearly expressed IN the
creation or cosmos itself.  If there is no creator or source apart from what
is the cosmos, then even moreso.  For the whole then is a self-creation.

Ham:

First of all, I do not put implicit trust in "universal betterness", since
> the universe is largely a construct of individual experience.



John:

I would say rather it's a construct of collaborative experience.  We
conceptualize by following rules that others concur with.

Ham:

What we understand as "good" is that which supports human life and the
> values toward which we are oriented.
> If you're suggesting that the cosmos is our moral guide, you're mistaken.
> The universe is amoral.  It evolves on its own course without regard to our
> preferences or aspirations.


John:

But paying attention to a perceived individual good, while neglecting the
wider environmental context of the individual, leads to disastrous
consequence to beings endowed with intellectual prowess to ignite atomic
weapons and pollute the earth beyond habitability.  Thus it behooves us to
seek the good of the whole, over our own self interest.  Rather put it this
way, our true self interest IS the good of the whole.

And it is in that sense, that "the cosmos is our moral guide".

Ham:

Does being a "high Quality intellectual pattern" make God real?  Or is this
> just another conceptual pattern created by the imind (a.k.a. Intellectual
> Level)?
>
>
John:

Does the law of gravity being a high quality intellectual pattern, make it
real?  All concepts are real.  Just some are higher quality than others.


John Prev:


>
>>
>> I question your distinction of the cognitive individual and the
>> culture. Cognitive individuals are the creations of a culture,
>> just as culture is simultaneously the creation of individuals.
>> As Pirsig points out, the famous Cartesian dictum should have
>> said "The 17th century French culture exists, therefore I
>>  realize I am."
>>
>> This is obviously true for the psychological as well as ontological levels
>> of analysis.
>>
>
>
Ham:


> I disagree.  Would Descartes have failed to come up with his Cogito had it
> lacked this socio-cultural context?  His meditations were those of a human
> being, not of a social product of 17th century France. This line of
> reasoning typically leads to the question: Would he have been able to think
> if he had been isolated on a desert island.


John:

If he hadn't the socialization of a mommy and a daddy as his fundamental
root of being, he wouldn't have existed in the first place.  Realization of
self occurs in relation to other.  Desert Island doesn't quite capture what
I'm trying to convey.  Think isolated being in dark empty space, with
absolutely no thing to compare oneself too.

Ham:


> The inference is that we need society to form ideas and analyze concepts.
>  That's collectivist bunk, in my opinion.  Life is an individual experience.
>  Frankly, I don't see the need for a Social Level anymore than I do for an
> Intellectual Level


John:

Well, I think you need to think it through a little more deeply.


Ham:


I can't say I was impressed with Peters' exposition, either.  He filled most
> of his 15 pages illustrating recursion with a map of England within a map of
> England, ad infinitum.  This is symbolic analysis, not metaphysivcs or
> philosophy.  It's the sort of sophism that drives me crazy on this forum.
>  Language is representative; we all know that.  But the letters and symbols
> refer to "real" objects and events, so we don't have to spend hours looking
> at ourselves looking at ourselves looking at ourselves in the mirror of
> infinite regressions.


John:

Royce was making a particular point about Bradley's assertion of the
impossibility to conceptualize the Absolute, BECAUSE of the infinite
regression, and Royce was using the map of england thought experiment, to
demonstrate non-mathematically the newly discovered logic of transfinite
numbers to show how it is possible.

So I think there is more agreement there than you might realize.

Ham:


>  Likewise, metaphysics is conceptual.  But to argue that a metaphysical
> concept such as MOQ necessitates a "higher level of Intellect" than can be
> contained in a reality by that name is childish nonsense.
>
>
John:

 We "children" can "conceptually contain" more than you're giving us  credit
for.


John prev:


>>  And btw, when I followed your link to your posting of article on
>> your website, it looked kinda screwed up.
>>
>
> Ham:


> You must be using FireFox as your browser.


John:  True!

Ham:


> If so, I apologize for the mess.
> I constructed this website back in 2002 using Microsoft FrontPage as my
> development program.


John:

Ewww... I used to be a html coder.  I always hated FrontPage with a deep and
abiding passion.

Ham:

 FrontPage is compatible with Internet Explorer which was the standard at
> that time.  Since then new browsers have come onto the market using display
> formats not supported by Microsoft.  It makes no sense other than as a way
> to push new products on the consumer, and it's a source of annoyance and
> embarrassment to me.  I'm currently seeking help from Earthlink and Verizon
> on how to make or my site compatible with all browsers currently in use
> without having to start all over from scratch.

 If you have any solutions they would be greatly appreciated.  Fortunately
> the lengthy text of my thesis page seems to be displayed by Firefox Mozilla
> in proper order
>
>

John:

It's been many years, since I dabbled with html.  My favorite tool came to
be BBedit.  It's got a search and replace function that uses regular
expressions.  I guess I should say, my favorite tool for web coding is
regular expressions.  I ended up using it 90% of the time.

But really, I'm sure by now there are some very good text-based programs out
there that help you troubleshoot.  They usually feature indentations and
color-coding and there are functions that do browser compatibility checks,
with highlighting for problem areas, just like spell check.

Ham:

Transfinite numbers and set theory are too sophisticated for this "country
> philosopher", I'm afraid.  (I had to look up "recursion" after seeing it
> used here by Joe Maurer and others, and am still not sure I understand its
> relevance to philosophy.)  I'll stick with "infinite regression" as it
> relates to metaphysics lacking an uncreated source.
>
>
John:

My introduction to recursion was in those days of programming.  Otherwise,
I'm with you Ham.  "Country Philosopher" pretty well sums me up too!



It's time for the annual family vacation to the coast, so I'll  be gone for
the following week.  I feel I'm leaving the MD in good hands, at this time,
as there's lots of high quality writing and thinking going on now and I'm
looking forward to catching up on my return.

Take care Ham,

John, headed for the roller coaster coast