[MD] Ham's Value Rigidity?

[Ham Priday]

Greetings, Ron --

On Sun, 6/17/12  9:47AM, "X Acto" <xacto at rocketmail.com> wrote:

> Ham:
>
----skipping quotes----
>
> What we are ultimately speaking about is meaning. Lets not forget this.
> And what gives any experience meaning is it's good.  "Good" is a limit
> placed on experience, it is a distinction made. The more accurate the
> distinction the more meaning it has.

Why is Good a "limit placed on experience" or anything else?  Is perfect 
Goodness (summum bonum) some kind of limitation as you see it?

I agree that the meaning of reality is what we aim for in philosophical 
discourse.  But we fall short of this objective if we don't account for 
Difference in existential reality as it relates to an undifferentiated 
source.

Certainly we make a "distinction" when appraising something as good.  This 
is a Value distinction, just as evil is a Value distinction.  Protagoras 
said: "Man is the measure of all things," meaning that we are the evaluators 
of a thing's virtue or worth.

> What "not-other" introduces is a logic trap, a classical one.
> Where meaing is concerned "not-other" is meaninglessness
> and that which has no meaning has no value. In analytics it
> serves as a placeholder, it serves as a logical "zero" a "nihil"
> function.  Professor Cyde Miller goes off track philosophically
> when he begins his reason on a generality (one) to the
> particular (many) then argues back to the general (one)
> then believes this is a more descriptive explanation of the
> general (one).  Then thinks he has an accurate metaphor
> for the divine.  Its an old rhetorical play on words.
>
> .It fools one into believeing they understand the indefinable
> better rationally.

Miller's formulation was intended only to express Cusa's 'not-other' as a 
logical premise, not to interpret it descriptively.
>
> Cusa's glass is the subject matter of discussion, all else is a
> description including other-not other, nothing-ness and contrarity.

The glass analogy was mine, not Cusa's.  I intended it to demonstrate that
contrariety (differentiation) can be seen to coincide with unity even in 
empirical analysis.  What Cusa's First Principle demonstrates is that 
although we can't describe what is ineffable, it can be understood as a 
logical premise.  And that gives it meaning.

Thanks for the interest, Ron.

Essentially speaking,
Ham