[MD] Essentials for target practice

[John Carl]

*I* greet you Ham,


>
>  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.
>
>

Agree, of course.  I is the primordial concept; we must take it as a given.
THE concept which  leads to furtherr conceptualization and perception.

And since we're stuck with it, it must be real.  But only conceptually.



> 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.



Ok I see where you're coming from then, I think.

Therefore I am.

The conceptual I percieves otherness, therefore it is.

Is what?
Is  a concept.  Percept is related to sensibility and you say your "core
self" is sensibility which is saying, as you did and I corrected you, that
your self is a percept.

Confusing indeed!

Let's review, your core self is a concept which percieves, which makes it
sound like conceptualization is primary - Idealism.  However,
conceptualization arises from percieving differences, i.e., value awareness,
which makes perception primary, i.e. empiricism

Back and forth the philosopher argues.  I can see how it would drive anybody
crazy.  Is there no solution?

What is perceived, is values.  What is conceived, is values.  We can put the
whole arguement to rest by making values our ontological primacy and rest
easy.  It makes sense, is easy to explain and comes with a text book that's
fun to read.  Tah-dah, the MoQ.

As the voice from the sky said to Paul on the road, "why kick against the
pricks?"



>  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.
>
>
ALL roads lead to anywhere, if you're willing to keep going and making the
"right" turns.

The key is making the correct choices at every decision fork.  Making
correct choices is what the MoQ is all about.  Reassuring us that there is a
"Rome" to get to, is what Idealism is all about.  And allowing for varieties
of religious experience, is what keeps us free to explore.

However I'd argue with those who say it doesn't matter how you get there.
There's long ways, dangerous ways, etc.

I'd also argue with those who say that they have found The Way.  For the way
is relative to where you are when you start, and we all start from differing
places.


I believe Ellul answers your problem well with his analysis of your
"Ultimate Truth".  He agrees that this ultimate truth is eternal, unchanging
and hard as a diamond.  But the only way we have of getting to it is through
the infinitely malleable word - the world of conception.  This word is
dependent upon language, paradox, and reconciled conflict.



>
>  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.
>

Oh.  I was operating on the understanding of existence=reality.



> If existence were all there is to Reality, we would not need religion and
> philosophy to fulfill our lives.


Well it could by argued, by Lao Tzu among others, that we DON'T need
religion or philosophy to fulfill our lives.  We just think we do.



> Our "ways of knowing" are preconceptualized by value-sensibility.  It is
> experience that differentiates value to make existence (being and
> nothingness) our reality.
>
>
You lost me at "preconceptualized".   And then I'm also confused by
experience differentiating value when value is differentiation.

In other words, when I try and disentangle your ontology, I fear my own
sanity.

But anyway, I find nothing here to refute "existence (that which exists) =
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.
>
>
I disagree completely.  Ideas and improvisations do nothing BUT move us
relative  to truth.  Closer when they succeed, further when they fail.


> I don't like the sound of that, John.  "Idealism" has a bad connotation for
> me;


Jeez.  You guys and your "connotations".


> 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.
>
>
>

At least I hope to ease the negative connotations.

Thanks Ham,  It's been real.


John