[MD] Essentials for target practice

[Ham Priday]

Hey, John --


> Ok, Ham, I'm really getting somewhere,
> I think.

If you were really getting somewhere, I should think you'd know for certain. 
;-}

Ham, previously:
> There comes a time, it seems to me, when a "concept" must stand for
> something beyond a mental image or dialectic symbol.  We inhabit and
> participate in a world that we all treat as "real", at least when we're 
> not
> philosophizing.  Is it conceivable that this universe of concrete subjects
> and objects can exist on its own without an intrinsic essence to create
> and sustain it?

John:
> Absolutely!
>
> heh-heh.. get it?  "absolutely"?
>
> Actually, in reality,  I'm not so sure.  We can't go outside of or world 
> to
> see, nor back in time to observe what creates and sustains.  I prefer to
> keep the question open, and myself asking it, than to definitely say
> one way or the other.
>
> I do think a transcendant harmonizing principle is observed in the 
> relation
> between subject and object, and it is this principle which is the inviting
> topic of discussion.
>
> And I now realize what you mean by unrealized value as an absurdity.
> Much in the same way, Quality is dependent upon Choice - or Free Will.
> Without the freedom to choose, "betterness" is meaningless.
>
> I find no disagreement there.

Good ...because I suspect Mr. Pirsig would have some problems with that 
principle.

If the universe evolves as a totally moral system, individual choices can 
only mess up the process.  So long as man behaves in accordance with 
Nature's morality, everything is hunky-dory.   But when man creates values 
of his own and acts to fulfill them, is the universe still totally moral?

You might want to give that some thought, John.

Ham:
> Let me say that I define "nothingness" in the Sartrean sense of 
> "non-being".
> Even though nothingness is not an 'existent', being cannot exist without 
> non-being,

John:
> I'm sorry, but I disagree, I think.  Vacuum and absence are parts of the
> whole which is being-in-totality, and if you posit some sort of ultimate
> nothingness surrounding or contextualising ultimate being, as 
> ontologically
> necessary... well, I don't think I can go there with you.

Nothingness is the space (or time interval) that causes things and events to 
appear separately in existence. There's no need to "ultimize" Nothingness or 
Being, since neither is absolute in itself.  They are epistemologically--not 
ontolologically--necessary.  With those adjustments, you are left with 
"vacuum and/or absence are parts of the whole which is being-in-totality," 
which is exactly what I am saying.  So, what is your disagreement?

> Maybe its just my good fortune to not be confused by the right books,
> but I'd aver that that Ultimate Reality that transcends existence, is just
> as ontologically unnecessary as nothingness.

Well, John, you must realize that this puts you in the objectivist category, 
otherwise known as logical positivism.  If you think that belief in a 
Quality hierarchy exonerates you from this position, you've got another 
thought coming.

> What I've been really fascinated with today, is John Durham Peters
> exposition on Royce's Supplementary to his World and Individual, which
> was an argument against certain aspects of Bradley's brand of Absolute
> Idealism.
> I'd like to offer you the whole thing and get your take on it, because I
> enjoyed reading it and thought of you often while doing so.  Let me know
> if you're interested.  I'd send you the link, but I can't seem to find it.
>
> What I get from  Royce makes a good argument for equating ultimate
> reality with existence.  His map within a map is crafted to do exactly 
> that.
> He goes on for pages and page tho, reading Peter's "explanatory
> philosophology" comes in real handy.

I'll make a deal with you, John.  I will read the Peters exposition if you 
will read an essay by Richard Schain which I'm about to run on next week's 
Values Page.  I guarantee it will clear your thinking on most of the 
fundamental issues we've been discussing and open it to some others we've 
omitted --without mathematics, by the way.  (Incidentally, this 2003 essay 
is not Dr. Schain's "Toward A Radical Metaphysics" which I've posted on my 
archives list.)   Are we on?

Ham:
> You might as well say that Reality is a "high quality idea" and
> be done with it.

John:
> Ham!  Of course Reality is a high quality idea!  That's my whole
> main point in all this.  I guess that means I'm done with it?

That's a question you'll have to resolve for yourself, John.  Are you 
intellectually satisfied accepting Reality as a "good idea" as opposed to 
understanding it as a metaphysical ontology?  If so, you're not the 
philosopher I took you for.

I await your link to the Peters article.  The Schain essay will go on line 
(www.essentialism.net/balance.htm) beginning Sunday morning.  I'll be 
surprised if it isn't the most definitive piece on metaphysics you've seen 
by a contemporary author.  And his MD is in neurology!

> Well needless to say, I'm extremely happy and excited where my
> wanderings in responses to your proddings have taken me, Ham.
> So "productive dialogue" indeed.

Thanks and likewise, John.

Cheers,
Ham: