[MD] Fw: relative.

[118]

Bon Giorno Ham,

On 1/15/12, Ham Priday <hampday1 at verizon.net> wrote:
> Evening, Mark --
>
>
> On Friday, 1/13, at 6:34 PM, "118" <ununoctiums at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Hi Ham,
>> Thanks for the response.  I have a couple of comments below:
>>
> [Ham, previously]:
>>> Because philosophy, especially metaphysics, deals with
>>> conceptions and ideas beyond experience, language is critical
>>> for the philosopher.  That's why I have always stressed the
>>> importance of the concept over words or definitions.  If we
>>> let terminology get in the way, its purpose is never achieved.
>>> (Which is also probably why Pirsig shunned metaphysics,
>>> and why Bo placed so much emphasis on intellection.)
>>
> [Mark]:
>> As I see it, concepts are
objects which can be manipulated in meaningful ways.  In this way we
>> are still dealing with an objectified world.  The point I was trying
>> to make was that language is the result of us seeing the world in a
>> certain way, as well as something with perpetuates that seeing.  If
>> instead we saw "objects" not as something external, but as something
>> projected (we do create objects with our brains), we get a different
>> way of seeing.  The quote I provided at the end of that post, did just
>> that.  No longer do we see a man riding a horse, but we are the man
>> riding the horse.  This form of communication is much more revealing
>> than the picture variety, for the riding of the horse is much more
>> than just the picture.
>
[Ham]
> A philosopher who uses words to argue that his philosophy is all words, as
> Wittgenstein did, surely puts him in a box of his own making.  I don't
> agree, however, that "concepts are objects" to be manipulated.  Concepts are
> intuitive ideas about reality developed intellectually by reflection on
> one's experience.  Unlike objects, which are universal, conceptions are
> unique to the individual who originates them.  They don't become "universal"
> until they are comprehended and accepted by others.  This, incidentally, is
> the stage at which you and I currently confront each other.

OK, by your criteria"objects" is the wrong word to use.  What I was
trying to say is that multiple concepts can give birth to new
concepts.  This is a form of manipulation.  I agree that we currently
discussing to come to some agreement on some terms, but that we have
come to agreement on others.
>
[Mark:]
>> I would agree with you.  There is creative word play within a specific
>> contextual format.  There is also the possibility of changing the
>> contextual format.  That is a very different thing.  But, I can stick
>> with your articulation, it brings me to good places.  My long-awaited
>> (by you) outline will be in your format.  I have been presenting some
>> media leaks in the mean time.  Seems to work in politics.
>
[Ham]
> I'm glad my articulation has brought you "to good places"; let's hope those
> places coincide, or are at least compatible, with the conception I have in
> mind.  For example, on 1/12 you said:
>
[Mark]
>> Indeed, I am arguing against a semantic reality.  I am arguing for
>> an experiential reality.  My point was that a language which
>> deemphases objects or nouns is much more useful.  An experiential
>> reality does not contain objects or subjects, so it is possible to
>> get away from SO.  That is all I am saying.  SO is not a done deal
>> as you claim.
>
[Ham]
> I don't understand how you can say that experiential reality does not
> contain subjects and objects?  Since it is the subject who experiences the
> appearance of objects, it would seem that you are opposed to experiential
> reality and are arguing (as I am) for a reality that _transcends_
> experience.  (I assume we are in agreement that these appearances are our
> intellectual objectification of experience.)  Could you kindly explain your
> reasoning here?

As you say, it is the subject that interprets the input and creates
the object from its qualities.  It is this Valuation which separates
us from the object.  I think I am addressing the process of negation,
not the result.  I am not arguing against an experiential reality in
favor of a trancending reality, in this case.  In fact, I believe both
exist.

In terms of the SO paradigm, let me use an example:  What the the
Subject or Object in the experience of pain?  Pain is an experience,
no different to other experiences.  Once the pain is felt, we can then
objectivize it to see what is causing the pain, or study it to see how
the pain manifests internally.  But the pain itself is the experience.
 When we see something, we experience it first in the same way.  Then
we devide it into relational pictures within a subject-object
paradigm.

The description of a man riding a horse using SO methodology provides
us with a picture of a man riding a horse.  It does not put us
experientially with the man riding a horse.  That experience has
nothing to do with subjects or objects, just like pain doesn't.  My
conjecture was that with the aid of language the SO paradigm could be
more flexible, and not be completely dominating of the way we think.

I am not sure if I am clear, and I can provide futher understanding of
what I am presenting if you ask questions, or present a counter
argument.
>
All the best to you and yours,
Mark
>
>
> Moq_Discuss mailing list
> Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
> Archives:
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
> http://moq.org/md/archives.html
>