[MD] Hot stoves and those who sit on them

[John Carl]

Sorry Ham,

My fault.  I don't label my interjections properly.  I'm lazy that way.  But
it was me, not Andre who said...



>  Because the individual, when objectively analyzed, requires context for
>> definition of itself and proper self-understanding.  Without realization
>> of
>> context, individuation disappears.  Thus the individual cannot be taken as
>> fundamental all by itself, without causing all kinds of metaphysical
>> problems.
>>
>
>

Ham:


> Who says the individual must be "objectively analyzed"?  Certainly not an
> MoQist.
>

John:

Certainly not "must", but if you're gonna do it, if you choose to do it,
then there is only one way it is possible - contextually.


Ham:


> The context of individual subjects and objects is that of difference and
> relation.
>


John:

I would say difference IS a relation thus the context of individualization
is relationship.  A "relationship" is a connection between objectified
concepts.  (or conceptualized objects)

Ham:


> The nature of subjective awareness is proprietary sensibility.  Sensibility
> is not an inherent property of relational existence, so it can't be
> "objectively analyzed".


John:

Well, I disagree on several points then.  First, I could just as easily say,
"the nature of proprietary sensibility is subjective awareness", therefore
sensibility IS a property of relational existence.  What else could possibly
qualify?

And anything can be objectively analyzed.  You just have to accept that your
objectifying is relative and not absolute.

Ham:


> Since sensibility is both self-evident and fundamental to awareness, it can
> only be "analyzed" metaphysically, whatever "problem" this may cause the
> MoQist.
>
>
John:

None for me.  Analyzing metaphysically is our business here.

Ham:


> I also object to your caveat to Joe:
>
>  Ham plays on the importance of the individual (using his 'essence'
>> as Platt uses the MoQ) to justify the exploitation of this concept of
>> individuality for political/economic purposes.
>>
>> It simply is to justify the static social patterns of value they firmly
>> believe in.
>>
>
John:

Now that was Andre.  So  I'll refrain from defending his words for him.

Ham:


> That simply isn/t true.  To claim that I spent half my life developing a
> philosophy for political/economic purposes is absurd.  (Hell, I wouldn't
> know what a "static social pattern of value" was if I sat on it!)
>
>
John:

I'll take your word for what is absurd spending half your life doing; I
mean, how could anyone argue?  Half your life would take just about all of
mine.

But I bet there are "static social patterns of value" out there that you
could sit on and know it!

Or maybe they'd sit on yours.  Isn't that called a lapdance?

yours from Reno,

John