[MD] Essentials for target practice

[John Carl]

Ham,

I feel like you're swimming circles around me, out here in the deep end.
 But we'll see if I can dive down a little deeper, and change my
perspective.

Taking a deep breath...

Ham:


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

For an idealist, thinking IS knowing for certain, because certainly  knowing
is only a  thought, and knowing one holds a thought is as certain as
anything...

But to say for certain that I'm going somewhere, means I know for certain
that I'm moving, (in the moment) and for certain that I'm getting somewhere,
and not just going in circles (from a larger perspective, relative to an
intended object)

I know for certain that I'm moving, and my intended object is mutual
understanding with you, and my larger perspective is a future reading of
history.

So I guess I can't ever know for certain, til our future reading of history.

(whew - I come up for breath now)


> 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.
>>
>
>
Ham:



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

 without freedom, there can be no choice.  I think Mr. Pirsig says it
differently, without Quality there can be no choice, but I'd guess we're
both saying the same things.

If you want to argue that one came first, one is the fundamental source, and
the other is dependent arising, as you do, I'm not ready to go there.

It always seems to me somewhat foolish to pursue questions such as "what is
more important, yin?  Or Yang?"   Chicken and egg problems, we term them.
 But you gotta have both if you want a chicken omolette, which I do, because
I'm hungry.

Josiah desribes this solution,

The Universe, as Subject-Object, contains a complete and perfect

image, or view of itself. . . . *Whatever is, is a part of a self-imaged
system*

. . . And hence our trivial illustration of the ideally perfect map of

England within England, turns out to be, after all, a type and image

of the universal constitution of things. I am obliged to regard

this result as of the greatest weight for any metaphysical enterprise.

(553, original emphasis)



In an update of Berkeley’s principle that *esse est percipi*, Royce

makes being and being represented one. And what is the name

of the self-imaging system that is (within) the universe? Cantor,

Royce, and Borges all call it the aleph.
-----------


Now, that doesn't sound too afar from your terminology, Ham.  "esse est
percepi"?  Is that where the label "essence" derives from?

And how is any of this so different from a Pirsigian Quality, where subject
and object are simultaneously born in one-ness?

Ham:

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?
>
>
John:

What means this "his own", Ham?  I recall Royce's refutation of the
Schopenhaurian pessimism which sounds like what you're spouting here.
 Suppose a man identifies "his own"  values with those of a higher purpose,
or higher value?  Men often try, sometimes they fail, sometimes they
succeed, but at least you have to admit that it is possible for a man to
identify his ego with the higher purposes of social and planetary harmony,
and thus in serving "his own" his creative act is totally moral.

Furthermore, even if a man is wrong, and mistakes some aspects of overlooks
some consequence, if he truly cares he's capable of correcting his mistake,
or admitting and helping those who come after him to see the mistakes, and
rectify their consequences.  Proper attitude applied over infinite time will
always overcome in the end.

As Royce points out, since the identification of the man's self with a
higher purpose, isn't bounded by human lifespan, it is, in essence,
immortal.

Ham:

You might want to give that some thought, John.
>
>

John:

I agree completely.


Ham:

>
> Nothingness is the space (or time interval) that causes things and events
> to appear separately in existences.


John:

Ok.  I was puzzled, now that helps me understand.  You mean "nothingness"
like an artist means "white space".

Ham:



> There's no need to "utilize" Nothingness or Being, since neither is
> absolute in itself.


John:

Well neither is whitespace on a painting absolute white, It's just white
enough to contrast.

but the artist utilize's it anyway.  Hmmm... Interesting.  Utilizes by
refraining from using, is how an artist uses whitespace.  This actually ties
in to a completely different philosophical discussion about the jewish
mythos of sabbath/creation and how it relates to free will, but we'll save
that for another time.

Ham:



>  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?


John:

My disagreement was a misunderstanding, due to the connotations I had of
nothingness.

All cleared up now.

Ham:



> 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.
>
>

John:

I've always got another thought coming, until I'm dead. I reserve the right
to change my mind at any time.  :-)

But no, I'm not a logical positivist.  Of that I'm logically positive.

Ham:



> 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?
>
>
John:  Absolutely.  I'd be delighted, Ham.  Here's
yours<http://www.borges.pitt.edu/documents/2501.pdf>
:



>
> 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?
>>
>
>
Ham:



> 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.
>
>

John:

Well what if accepting Reality as a Good Idea (Quality) IS my metaphysical
ontology?  If you can't understand that, then you're not the philosopher I
take YOU for.  But I think my article will help you discern what I mean by
it.

Ham:


> 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!
>
>

Your enthusiasm is contagious, Ham.  I'm looking forward to it.

 Take care,

John