[MD] aggregates of grasping

[118]

Hi Ham,
Since I am one of "the group" I have a comment below:

On 3/8/12, Ham Priday <hampday1 at verizon.net> wrote:
>
> Hi Dan --
>
> [Previously]:
>>> Robert Pirsig was responding to the charge that the MOQ
>>> is a form of emotivism.  By equating morality (or within the
>>> MOQ, value) with sentiments and feelings, reality becomes
>>> as you like it.
>
> [Ham]:
>>> The mistake Dan has made, and it's a trap of Pirsig's hierarchical
>>> scheme, is reducing Value to a "biological" function, thus
>>> denigrating its "intellectual" significance.
>
> [Dan]:
>> No, no, no... you've completely mis-read what was written, both the
>> quote and my subsequent comment... I don't know how on earth
>> you've come to such an interpretation of my words or of Robert
>> Pirsig's words. In fact, the RMP quote is saying quite the opposite...
>> it is specifically DENYING that value is entirely a biological function...
>> that is what emotivism means.
>>
>> I'm not going to waste any (more) of my valuable time in explaining
>> this further as I suspect you are quite blind to my words, as you have
>> proven in the past. I don't think you "get it" and I cannot for the
>> life of me understand the reason... but so be it.
>
> I apologize for misinterpreting your statement, Dan.  I hadn't been
> following your discussion with Mark and Joe closely, but when I spotted the
> phrase "equating morality (or within the MOQ, value) with sentiments and
> feelings," I instinctively reacted as if feelings were being reduced to
> "biological responses."

Mark:
It seems that you are twisting things a bit here to serve your
purpose.  But if indeed we do realize such things as you say, then
they would certainly be relegating feelings to a biological basis.
Unless your realization is something separate from the human body.
All I know is that drugs or alcohol can change personal morality, that
would make it pretty biological to me.  The question is, what is the
basis for human morality to begin with?

>
> Anyway, the point I wanted to make (to the group) is that we DO make our
> reality
> correspond with our proprietary value orientation.   Our valuistic sense of
> what is good or bad, just or unjust, admirable or trite, virtuous or immoral
> "colors" our experienced world to represent these sentiments.  And, although
> Value is not seated in the emotions but comes from our relation with the
> Primary Source, it is realized emotionally, aesthetically, morally, and
> intellectually.

Ham, you have to be careful here, when you use the term "we" (or "I"
for that matter).  While it can be perhaps logically shown that indeed
such value is created by us, this logical format falls apart when one
asks "what do you mean by "I"?".  There is a school of thought which
states that there is a reality outside of our personal acquaintance
with such.  This group would claim that similar people share the same
reality because of this.  So, apart from the personal reality, it is
possible to logically conjecture of a reality which exists outside of
that.  This would be in opposition to the "brain in the vat"
hypoethesis.

When we bump into a tree in the dark, I am not sure where the external
reality ends and our personal reality begins.  Certainly the pain is
personal, but that which results in it is not.  Therefore, our
valuation is dependent on some more universal principle (whether one
calls it evolution, or some other construction), instead of a personal
preference.

Again the term "realized" can be used in several ways.  If I take the
most common use, that is "to make real", I can then present how the
external reality makes such a thing possible.  For, when we make
something real, it means that we interpret in such a way that can be
understood, either consciously, subconsciously, or peripherally.

This can be explained through the "tree in the dark analogy".  This
tree becomes "real for us" when we bump into it.  However, common
sense suggests that this tree existed before that.  Therefore, our
realization of morality (for example), is our interpretation of
something which exists.  This is why I claim that you cannot create
some thing out of no thing, remember?  This goes for the conceptual as
well, since this is experience driven, at least at the outset.  I
could ask you, "why does human morality exist", and ask you to stay
away from science for the answer.

So: Why does morality in its human form exist?  Why can only humans
act in a moral fashion?  If you go into the anthropocentric spirit
world, I will dive into the pagan world.  Both are equal in terms of
ideas, the pagan world is much older if that means anything in terms
of the roots of our understanding.  Besides, the presence of
individual human spirits with free will sounds pretty pagan to me.

>
> Hopefully, this epistemology is closer to what you had in mind.

Your epistemology is close to mine, mine is just more expansive (in my opinion).
>
Cheers,
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
>