[MD] Ham's Value Rigidity?

[X Acto]

Greetings, Ham


Ron had said:
> 
----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.

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

Ron:
The question why leads back to definition and the reason why is the primary factor in explanation, the good
or the "why" in explanation is an end it is that on which we are prepared to act apon. " the reasonable man
allways acts for the sake of something and this serves as a limit." -Aristotle alpha the less

Ham:
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.

Ron:
What Philosophy aims for in discourse is clarity in meaning,  Not an ultimate meaning. We fall short when
we succum to traps in explanation such as the problem of the one and the many.

Ham:
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.

Ron finishing Protagoras's quote:
"of things which are, that they are, and of things which are not, that they are not"...meaning non-contradiction
in meaning. It kinda flys in the face of the concept of "not-other". 

Ron previously:
> 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.

Ham:
Miller's formulation was intended only to express Cusa's 'not-other' as a logical premise, not to interpret it descriptively.

Ron:
> Cusa's glass is the subject matter of discussion, all else is a
> description including other-not other, nothing-ness and contrarity.

Ham:
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.

Ron:
What gives it meaning is that it is a placeholder in a logical premise, a kind of "fill in the blank"
It's a tool in the way zero is a tool, but as far as providing any kind of real "useful" meaning...
I fail to see it. To add: a logical premise IS a descriptive interpretation.


thnx Ham

..