[MD] The other side of Value

[X Acto]

[Mark]
Nothingness is that which divides.  Where is that which divides good
and evil?  Can you point to it?  Does it exist?  This is where Ron has
difficulty.  He is trying to create a dualist world with divisions.
However, he cannot himself point to that which divides.  If the
divider does not exist, we are left with a monist world, not matter
how many opposites we can imagine.

Ron:
Mark, there is so much confusion about what I'm talking about that I'm not
sure if I can untangle it and communicate my meaning accurately
to you. So all apologies if I do not pursue the dialog, you said some 
interesting things regarding limit and number however.
You would understand the difficulties if you took the time to 
understand the history of the philosphical problems being
discussed.

>


[Mark]
Any logic is " word trickery", and Ron should know this.  The sophists
based their expression on word trickery.  Lawyers sound awfully
logical unless you are on the other side, then one must beware of
trickery.  If Ron can explain in terms of a logical premise, such
explanation is immediately suspect since it relies on assuming a
starting assumption to be Truth.  What is it that makes such an
assumption the true Ground to build on?  Everything built from it
stands as if on quicksand.

Ron:
First of all logic is predicated on experience more importantly an
agreement of experience and what we are properly speaking
about is not logic or truth but meaning. The best explanations
are those that prove themselves good by way of experience.
They provide the greatest meaning. 
Hams explanation is unclear and discontinouse not to mention
posessing a crucial contradiction of terms that has huge consequences
in his theory. 
This makes it difficult for him in his rhetorical arguements.Talk about theories
being built on quicksand!
Logic is based on meaning not truth so what I condemn Ham for is not that his
theory is true or not but that it has little meaning.

>
> Ron:
>>
>> That absolute source being "the good "as primary reality, whatever exists
>> indeed is a reduction, perceptually, of "the good".  Perception is the
>> limit
>> and to limit is to carve meaning from experience. To make that which is
>> unintelligible, intelligible is clearly the greatest good.  It accounts
>> for beauty
>> in experience and why it is better to be wise than not.

[Mark]
To "make intelligible" is not necessarily good.  It can also be used
for coercion and extreme evil.  There are many ways to create the
intelligible.  The stars in the heavens can be made into
constellations, which can be considered intelligible, but they detract
from the beauty of the sky by omitting most of it.  Once we claim to
be working to make good, we are to be feared.  Most beauty is not made
intelligible.  A sonnet is made up mostly of unintelligible beauty.
>
Ron:
What makes the sonnet good Mark. What makes it beautiful?
the relation to experience , obviously the sonnet was successful
in making the experience intelligible. Or else it would not be understood
as beautiful. It would not have any meaning.


............................