[MD] Essentials for target practice

[John Carl]

Greetings most gracious Ham,

On Tue, Jun 29, 2010 at 10:46 PM, Ham Priday <hampday1 at verizon.net> wrote:

> Okay, John --
>
> If you've got the time, I've got the patience.
>

Just got back from a job doing a log rail; I find I lose patience fast when
the sun is hot or I'm uncomfortable.   This impatience can be reflected in
shoddy work.  Or as Japanese bicycle manual states: "assembly of Japanese
bicycle require great peace of mind."



>
> You asked about "the aspects of existence that have no recognizable
> appearance."  How do we know that an appearance (let's call it a
> "phenomenon") has aspects unless we recognize them?  Indeed, the aspects of
> a phenomon are what make up the appearance.
>
>

But many aspects cannot be witnessed first hand.  The moons of another
planet, I cannot see with my unaided eye.  I read about the investigations
of others and take their word for what they say is true.  I can't possibly
investigate for myself many of the aspects of existence that I believe and
rely on and tell myself (and others tell me) are true.


> Let's say you observe a round object lying on the beach.  You see that its
> surface is divided into patterned sections of red and white.  It might be a
> painted rock, you think.  Then a child comes long and kicks the object.  You
> hear a hollow thump and the object goes flying across the sand.  A rock
> would not have that resilience, nor would it so noisily be lifted into the
> air.by the action of a child's foot.  You've recognized the "aspects" of
> roundness, color, design, hollowness, elasticity, and dynamics on impact.
> Even if you've never seen a beach ball before, or heard its name, you can
> quickly deduce what kind of an object this is.
>
>

Not so sure of this, Ham.  If I have no prior experience with beachballness,
all I can deduce in the moment is what the object is not.



> [Ham, previously]:
>
>  These are all psycho-emotional affects of value-sensibility
>> projected by the self into otherness.
>>
>
> [John]:
>
>> I disagree.  Self and otherness both are constructs
>> whose construction are in many important ways, derived
>> from the aspects as you name them.
>>
>> And your "psycho-emotional affects" sounds to me like
>> a fancy-shmancy way of saying what everybody calls
>> the "its only in your mind" fallacy.
>>
>
> The beach ball is an experiential construct whose constituents are the
> valuistic aspects enumerated above.  The child who kicks the ball
> experiences the same construct, although from a slightly different
> space/time perspective.  To construct an object presupposes a workable
> substrate that can be fashioned to create that object.  Essentialism is a
> valuistic philosophy, and we're dealing with values differentiated by the
> human sensory apparatus.
>
> Primary Value is the realization of otherness, and the individual is the
> realizing agent.  (You can call this the individual's "aesthetic response"
> or "pre-intellectual sensibility", if you like; but "psycho-emotional
> affect" is the best epistemological term I've come up with.)  Finite values
> (the ones we experience) are derived from the value-sensibiity that is
> innate to all cognizant individuals. That experience is subjective doesn't
> mean it's "only in the mind" but that it is proprietary to the individual.
> As I tried to point out before, existence is the cumulative total of one's
> experience.
>
>
Makes sense to me, Ham.


> First of all, "things don't make things"  Things are finite phenomena that
> appear, evolve or change, and disappear.



What is the difference between evolutionary change and making?  From outward
appearance, they often seem identical.  If the issue is with agency,
doesn't a flower  "make"  a sweet scent from the biochemisistry of its
existence?



>
> [John]:
>
>> As I said, mere subjectivism.  "Time and space are mere
>> constructs of the animal mind."  - Dr. Lanza
>>
>
> What do you have against subjectivism, John?



Ah, you notice my pejorative "mere".  Good catch.  I take it as "being gored
by the single  horn".  Existence shouldn't'be pinned to either objects or
subjects, but understood as a relationship (interpretation) between the
two.


> Platt acquainted me with the subjectivist Donald Hoffman a couple of years
> ago, but I have since found Robert Lanza a more readable source on this
> worldview.  I have archived his essay "A New Theory of the Universe" on my
> website at www.essentialism.net/NewTheory.htm. and suggest that you read
> it.  I don't classify myself as a "subjectivist', but the label is more
> descriptive of my philosophy than objectivism or "logical positivism".
>
>
Ok, I take back the logical positivist comment.  It was meant more in jest
than earnest.

I really liked that link.  I hope Krimel reads it. It coincided with a
little bathroom reading last night:

"Appearances are finally controlled by the functionings of the animal body.
These functionings and the happenings within the environment of the body are
both derived from a common past, highly relevant to both.  It is thereby
pertinent to ask, whether the animal body and the extemal regions are not
attuned together, so that under normal circumstances, the appearances
conform to natures within the environment.  The attainment of such
conformation would belong to the perfection of nature in respect to the
higher types of animal life....  We have to ask whether nature does no
contain within itself a tendency to be in tune, an Eros urging towards
perfection."

A.N. Whitehead as quoted by Alan Watts



>> But I mean more than merely relational.  I mean that
>> meaning and awareness are social constructs, definitely
>> not proprietary to individuality.
>>
>
> That's because you've succumbed to Pirsig's brand of collectivism.  Ayn
> Rand wrote: "There is no such thing as a collective brain.  There is no such
> thing as a collective thought. ...no man can use his brain to think for
> another."  Again, life is an individual experience, and so are the
> sensibilities, ideas, conceptions, aspirations, and comparative judgments
> which contribute to this experience.  Sooner or later you're going to
> realize this existential truth.  I'll put my money on it.;-)
>


How much money have you got?



> But since you already agree that "unrealized value" is an oxymoron, start
> thinking about HOW value is realized and you'll discover that we don't
> borrow it from society, cultural norms, or authority.  I'm talking about
> "values", not rote memory or behavior.  Only an individual can realize
> value.
>

And only a society can define an individual.



>
> Once you realize that individuation and difference are the fundamental
> characteristics of existence, you'll never again be seduced by collectve
> ideology,  And, as Mary often says, "The most important thing you will ever
> make is a realization "
>
>
I agree with your (and Ayns)  disparagement of collectivism.  But even as a
body is more than a mere collection of organs, so is an individual much more
than a collection of individuated experience.   I still hold with Pirsig's
postulation of Quality as the best possible understanding of this "something
more".

We will chat some more, I have some more reading to do, and a juicy quote
comparing Kant and John Stuart Mill on "the good" that I'd like to run by
you.

Take Care,

John