[MD] Essentials for target practice

[Ham Priday]

Good morning, John --


> Did you know Alex G. Bell proposed "Ahoy" as the proper
> telephone greeting?  Which goes to show you can invent something
> but that doesn't mean you have any control over how people use it.

He must have been a navy man.

> I see.
> I think.
> Seeing that I think, I infer an existence.
> Thinking that I see, I infer an essence.

But does the precept "I" (as in "I see" and "I think") infer that the 
essence is you?

> Am I a percept or a concept?  The physical parts of my body I perceive,
> but that "I" doing the perceiving,   I'd surmise is conceptual.

Why is the subjective 'I' fraught with so much confusion?  It is amazing to 
me that people can deny what is their most intimate identity.  Certainly 
self-awareness (selfness, selfhood) is a "concept".  But it is the first of 
all concepts, since without it there can be no concepts.

I must confess that reconciling myself to the fact that 'I' is a non-essence 
was one of the most difficult issues of my ontology.  Yet, there was no 
alternative: Absolute Essence does not exist in fragments or pieces.  The 
individuated self subsists entirely on the "otherness" from which it is 
negated.  What saved the day (and my sanity) was the realization that my 
core self was Sensibility, and that Sensibility is nothing but 
Value-awareness.  Unlike Essence, Value can be individualized and 
differentiated, and (in the process of experience) converted to concrete 
objects and their relations which constitute the world of appearances.

 > From the SEP:
>
> "Royce's friendly but longstanding dispute with William James, known as
> 'The Battle of the Absolute,' deeply influenced both philosophers' 
> thought.
> In his later works, Royce reconceived his metaphysics as an "absolute
> pragmatism" grounded in semiotics. This view dispenses with the Absolute
> Mind of previous idealism and instead characterizes reality as a universe 
> of
> ideas or signs which occur in a process of being interpreted by an 
> infinite
> community of minds. These minds, and the community they constitute, may
> themselves be understood as signs. Royce's ethics, philosophy of 
> community,
> philosophy of religion, and logic reflect this metaphysical position."
>
> So the variety of conceptions, reveal the perennial reality of the thing,
> according to Royce.  So Ham's, Royce's, Pirsig's and Bradley's conception
> of Absolute Quality (in Pirsigian term) are all different fingers pointing 
> at
> the moon.
>
> Now I'm guessing, but I'd say that any one conception is not THE 
> conception,
> but each conception is the best at a certain time, coming from a certain
> place.

Conceptual equivocation covers a multitude of errors, which is why I find it 
inadequate as a foundation for ontology.  Such reasoning is like saying "All 
roads lead to Rome", so it doesn't matter what or whose concept gets us 
there.  But concepts aren't just analogies or metaphors to please the soul; 
they are the principles of an Ultimate Truth which, while unprovable, is 
also invariable.  The philosopher cannot be satisfied with either/or 
postulates or conclusions drawn from polls sampled under various conditions.

> Concepts exist!  Even if "only" in our head,  The real reality out there 
> is
> influenced by our preconceptualized ways of knowing.  And ideas exist.
> Don't you agree with Pirsig, that "the law of gravity" exists?  It exists 
> as
> an idea, just as the Easter Bunny and the Tooth Fairy.

I agree that physical laws exist as intellectual concepts.  However, I do 
NOT agree that what exists is Reality.
If existence were all there is to Reality, we would not need religion and 
philosophy to fulfill our lives.  Our "ways of knowing" are 
preconceptualized by value-sensibility.  It is experience that 
differentiates value to make existence (being and nothingness) our reality.

> Admittely, some ideas are better than others - which makes "betterness" a
> foundation for reality, hmmmm?  (I'll convert you yet, Ham)

When it comes to Truth, ideas don't count.  Science could not have advanced 
on the basis that "some ideas are better than others."  Neither can 
philosophy.  The laws and principles of nature represent the order of 
existence which, in turn, reflects the perfection of Essence.  Ad hominem 
ideas and improvisations may satisfy our artistic aspirations, but they 
don't bring us closer to metaphysical truth.

[John, concerning Idealism]:
> Ron's mentioned a couple of times that the MoQ is of the
> Philosophical Idealism breed, and of course I agree,
> since that's been my cant here from day one.
>
> jeez.  When I think how many times I've said this, and in
> so many ways...and to be accused of trying to "sneak"...
>
> Sorry.. distracted for a minute by a different dialogue.
>
> I'm getting in the mood to  revisit  the Copleston Annotations.
> I've learned a bit regarding Idealism since I last reviewed.
> It'd be fun, I think.  Annotate the annotations of what are basically,
> Annotations.
>
> And doing it here so anyone can Annotate them.
>
> See why I say a 4th level of intellectual patterns is infinite at the 
> upper
> boundary?

I don't like the sound of that, John.  "Idealism" has a bad connotation for 
me; namely, the notion that reality is ultimately open to infinite 
possibilities.  See, that's the problem I have with the classical definition 
of idealism as "a theory that the essential nature of reality lies in 
consciousness or reason."  I am an essentialist, not a subjectivist, and I 
don't believe consciousness or intellect determines the essence of reality. 
In fact, I believe it's the other way around: Essence determines the 
perceived order of existence.

Let me know what you make of the Copleston Annotations.  From what I recall, 
they are mainly RMP demonstrating the practice of what he called 
philosophilology.  But maybe you'll surprise me.

Best regards,
Ham