[MD] aggregates of grasping

[Ham Priday]

Good morning, Mark --

On Thurs, 3/08/12 at 4:56 PM,  "118" <ununoctiums at gmail.com> wrote:

[Ham, peviously to Dan]:
>> 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?

I guess I don't really understand your question, Mark.  Morality is a system 
of ethics, like philosophy or judicial prudence, based on principles of 
conduct deemed to be favorable or salutary for the individual in a 
collective society.  It's man's answer to the question: Why can't we all get 
along?

> 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.

You might as well ask: Why do we install stop signs and traffic lights on 
city streets?  Why do we hire lawyers to draft the obligations of purchasing 
transactions in legal contracts?   Why do we reward personal integrity and 
honorable behavior and punish liars and cheats?  Certainly social mores are 
based on individual and collective values, but there is nothing mystical 
about Morality.  It's simply characteristic of civilized societies to 
systemize those practices which work to everyone's advantage as a set of 
moral principles that serve as a guide to human conduct.  I'm not sure that 
"only humans can act in moral fashion", since animals seem to support each 
other and follow the "rules of the herd".

>> 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.

Why should I conjecture about an impersonal (non-human?) reality, and what 
do you mean by "similar people"?  Unlike you, Mark, I'm not an animist and 
find nothing about paganism that intrigues me philosophically.  The only 
values we can know and respond to are relative to human beings, and the 
world we objectivize from them is our existential reality.

> 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.

My use of the word "realize" generally is intended to imply "apprehension", 
although you raise an interesting point.  Perhaps I should consider 
"experiential realization" in place of "objectivization" when speaking of 
how we create our objective reality.

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

Yes, and I cringe when I see you "expanding" value realization to inanimate 
objects.  Again, Mark, there is no need for pagan animism in the Philosophy 
of Essence.  But I'll wait to see how you justify it in your ontology.

Have an inspired weekend,
Ham