[MD] The Dynamics of Value

[John Carl]

Mornin' Ham,  How are the huevos?

What does the term "intersubjective" add to disagreement?  Aren't all
> disagreements between two or more individuals?
>


While you make a good point, I think the logical redundancy helped me make a
rhetorical point that it is disagreements between individuals which help us
to make the true metaphysical distinction between illusion and reality.  If
two people agree on the reality of a mirage, it's hard to say how they could
ever get out of this illusion.  It's only when disagreement enters, that
further investigation seems necessary.

And there is a certain fundamental sense, in which we often argue or
disagree with differing aspects of ourselves.  Wouldn't you agree?  Perhaps
we've heard about mirages and we can't decide whether what we are viewing is
one or not.  The biologically-oriented parts of ourselves, if thirsty
enough, might argue with our rational skeptic parts.



> And if "Reality is that upon which we find easy agreement," why do we have
> so much difficulty defining what it is?
>
>
If you mean difficulty defining the fundamental characteristics of reality
itself, well that's just the nature of metaphysics. It's always difficult
when you have to dig down deep into things.  Not only do you have to decide
how deep you go before you stop and then find agreement at that level, but
you for agreement's sake, one must persuade on both issues - that this is
the right place to stop, and you're right.   But it seems to me that
whatever our ideas about reality itself, we have very little trouble in
agreeing if the objects of our experience are real or not.  We learn this
from birth, in games of peek-a-boo and such, and ever after, most everybody
gets it and agrees with one another.



Finally, you and I parted in an "agreement to disagree" some months ago.
> Where do you currently stand on the issue of a primary source?  Or do you
> consider yourself a practicing Buddhist?
>
>
I'm not sure what I think about "a primary source".  Perhaps that's an area
where I just don't go deep enough.  Imo, where you and I disagree  is the
fundamental nature of individualty.  I view the individual as a social
construct, and you seem to think it's something more fundamental than
social.

As far as what I practice, I know it sounds silly, but I actually am a
practicing Seventh Day Zen Rastafarian, have been for more than half my life
now.  Usually a little embarrassed to admit it, but I heard in this
excellent talk given by Dr. Kara Barnette, that I found on the web, about
loyalty and "the virtuous traitor" that Royce ascribes the high nobility to
those who are loyal to lost causes, and the highest nobility to the lostest
of cause - the religious formulations of their own making.  Sorta made my
day, it did.  I'll send you the link if you're interested.

Take it easy...  over,

John