[MD] Three Hot Stoves

[Ham Priday]

Hi John --


You said:
> Without conceptualization, there can be no experience.
> The very essence of experience is a realization of a something
> which requires a concept of some kind.

I responded:
> Right on, John!  Realization is what prompts Conceptualization,
> from which experience is actuated.

[John]:
> Couldn't it be said rather that conceptualization prompts realization?
> Maybe it works both ways because it is with realizing a pattern that a
> concept is born.  "The possession of a 'concept' is not knowledge...
> Knowledge is propositional."  (Scott Ryan)

No.  What can you conceptualize that you don't first realize?  Value 
realization is primary to conceptualization.  (In Pirsig's vernacular, it's 
"pre-intellectual experience".)  The concept--i.e., what a thing or event 
appears to be--is an experiential construct of its realized value.  The 
process of constructing objective entities from value is sometimes called 
"actualization".  Nicholas of Cusa in the 15th century postulated the 
concept of "actualized possibility" [Latin, "posse"], reasoning that if 
actuality did not exist, nothing could actually be.  But things appear; 
therefore actuality exists.  Hegel theorized that "the inward negation of 
Essence is manifested in its outward appearance," and he called the 
completion of this inward/outward identity 'Actuality'.  Hegel's cosmology 
is based on "being", however, and is non-valuistic.  For the valuist, being 
is "actualized value".

> I've been contemplating this since last night, and what I'm thinking at 
> the
> moment is that one meaning of "value" is exactly what I mean by a "concept
> or a pattern".  Take the simplest conceptualization of light and dark - 
> the
> ubiquitious daily pattern that all mammals experience.  Light could said 
> to
> be a value, in the exact same sense that I mean it as a concept.  It is
> pattern of experience that is contrasted or carved out of the whole.  The
> realization of night and day.

The experience of night turning into day, and vice-versa, is a construct of 
value.  The difference between light and darkness is an intellectual 
"precept" (knowledge) derived from the experience.

[Ham]:
> We do, indeed, realize something called Value as primary to both 
> experience
> and intellection.  What is this Value, and where does it come from?
> Perhaps more important as regards the MoQ, does Value exist before
> it is realized?

[John]:
> In this case, I'd take a pragmatic stance that "it doesn't really matter".
> That is, it doesn't make any difference if unrealized value exists or not,
> because we can only deal with what we do realize.  My stubborn insistence
> of focusing upon "language all the way down" is rooted in the same idea,
> because talking about what lies outside of language seems pointless and
> futile in the end.  It is upon that basis that I agree that "unrealized
> value is an oxymoron."

The premise does matter if you are building an ontology on it.  Language 
only expresses the concept.  Philosophical concepts are not developed from 
words or numbers; such symbols merely represent the concepts for 
communication purposes.  You can be a pragmatist and say "how you realize 
something doesn't matter", but you'll never make a philosopher with that 
attitude.  The philosopher has to deal with concepts that reach beyond 
empirical evidence.

> However, there is a point to trying to always reach beyond our 
> conceptions.
> That such an effort is driven by a quest that began with our birth whereby
> we build continuing linguistic analogues for our experience in a process
> that never ceases.  And that this process as a whole very definitely 
> points
> at what is beyond language or definition.  Calling what we aim at
> "Intellectual Quality" seems as good a term as any, and better than most.

Again, the "conception" is what we DO reach for.  It's intellectual precepts 
that we depend on for pragmatic survival.  "Intellectual Quality" is a 
euphemism that doesn't translate into anything meaningful to me.

[Ham]:
> Existence is 'valuistic'; and Mr. Pirsig deserves full credit for 
> advancing
> that precept.  A metaphysics requires more than a qualitative foundation,
> however.  For if Value exists only where there is a sensible agent to 
> realize it,
> "existence" infers an ultimate Source from which Value (Quality) is 
> derived.

[John]:
> Now here is where it sounds to me as if you're dabbling in Absolute
> Idealism. Your "ultimate source" seems very close to Royce's "Absolute
> Knower".

I don't use Royce as a reference for my thesis, nor do I consciously pattern 
my philosophy after any authority.
If the label "Absolute Idealism" fits, then so be it.  (I've been called by 
worse names.)

[Ham]:
> We can talk about "patterned" and "unpatterned", "static" and "dynamic",
> until we're blue in the face, but all we're defining in the process is
> differentiated existence or its aggregated whole as "beingness".  Since
> beingness is the product of experience which, in turn, is dependent on
> value-sensibility, the primary Source logically must transcend existence.
> For me, that means the Source is not a 'being' or an 'existent', not 
> subject
> to the conditions of space/time and cause/effect, but the uncreated
> Absolute.

[John]:
> Definitely Roycean.

[Ham]:
> Back in 2009 you said. "I'm willing and even eager to play.
> I just need some small agreement before knowing how to proceed."

[John]:
> I've learned quite a bit since then Ham, and this seems very good to me.
> I would definitely like to continue the process.

Great!  You should know that I have an ulterior motive beyond winning you 
over to essentialism.  I value your logic, and hope our dialog leads to 
insights or analogies that will improve my exposition.

> Happy Eclipsed Solstice.

(I think the eclipse occurred while typing this message.)

Merry Christmas to you and yours, John.
--Ham