[MD] The hard question.

[Ham Priday]

Hey, Mark --

Ok, back to your questions . . .

On Sat, May 26, 8:57 PM, Mark"118" <ununoctiums at gmail.com> said:

> Ham you are not listening.  Man is special because man is man,
> and extra special because I am a man.  A rabbit is also special,
> and it does not find man very special.  Each and everything is unique.
> Perhaps you are using the term unique in a way that I do not
> understand.  What exactly do you mean by unique?  Are we maybe
> "more unique"?  What are your criteria for uniqueness?  We live in
> a human form, it is difficult to comprehend the uniqueness of
> everything else, and very, very easy to conflate all of the rest of
> existence as something mechanical.  The rest of existence is simply
> not human, and that is all we can say.  We cannot ascribe man as
> living on the other side of a curtain.

I think you have understimated your species, Mark.  And I suspect it's 
because you don't want to be accused of acknowledging man as the 
choice-maker of his reality.  That would of course elevate him to a 
"superior" position in the realm of  living creatures (which he is) and 
imbue him with "spiritual" attributes (which value-sensibility and free will 
affords him).   Nowhere have I "conflated the rest of existence as something 
mechanical".  Again, there is no way I can "prove" the uniqueness of man to 
you.  But I do suggest that you seriously consider man's capabilities and 
accomplishments on this planet relative to other primates before concluding 
that we are not special creatures.

> Ham, again you are not listening.  I find man to be a wonder!
> It seems that you need man to be exclusive for this to be true.
> Why, in your opinion is it that only if man is exclusive is he
> wonderful?  Must man stand apart for this to happen?  If man
> can only be a wonder by making everything else sub-important,
> then you are well on your way to destroying this planet.

Unique means "singular, or one of a kind", not "wonderful", Mark.  For some 
strange reason you are perverting my anthropocentrist ontology with magical 
implications.  We live in a world whose civilization is  populated by human 
beings responsible for planning and controlling the future of mankind.  That 
alone elevates man above his biological predecessors.  Indeed, if anything 
is on its way to "destroying this planet",
it is man himself.

> You say that man is not equivalent to his environment.
> It is up to you to prove that.  If all you have is complexity,
> I can show you an equivalent to everything man does,
> in the "natural world".  All we can do is mimic the natural
> world, we are not gods, we cannot create something out of
> nothing, all we have are the tools we are given.  So, before
> you once again contend that man is different, please show
> me some proof.  Yes, we are men, we see things as man,
> but that is the only difference.

Do you really believe all we can do is mimic the natural world?  Are modern 
medicine, architecture, engineering, space technology, philosophy, and the 
arts mimicking nature?  Surely, as a scientist, you must give man more 
credit than that!   What additional proof do you need?

> Have you ever seen a bird build a nest?  Is it not better
> to lay eggs in a nest?  Do you not think a bird becomes
> wiser as it grows?  Dogs like certain kinds of food more
> than other types.  Are you saying that this is not value seeking?
> I have no idea what goes through a dog's head, but that
> does not mean it does not contemplate.  For what is
> contemplation but an excercise of a brain?  Again, I am not
> saying that a dog contemplates in a human way, but given
> the similarity of brain structure it is probably not that different.
> I am assuming, of course, that you buy into the notion that
> the structure of the brain has something to do with value
> seeking.  If not, then you have lost me completely.

My assessment of your argument is that it's "for the birds".  Neither birds 
nor dogs "seek value" or wisdom.  Food preferences exhibited by these 
animals is instinctual and does not constitute epicurean discrimination. 
Effective nest-building is a consequence of the survival of the fittest over 
thousands of generations.  "Similarity of brain structure" doesn't sell me, 
Mark; all sentient creatures need a brain and nervous system in order to 
function in nature.

> You say that we create value through other.  You therefore
> separate value out as something that is created.  If value can
> be created, it stands to reason that other things can be created,
> if the universe was different.  This is no different from saying
> that we can create houses, and we can also create boats.
> However, perhaps you are referring to what man does as
> something other than creation.

No, you've got it backwards, Mark.  I say that we create other through 
value.  Our objectified existence is a value construct.  (Did you read my 
Memorial Day post restating Marsha's ontology?)  More precisely, we bring 
value into the world through experience, which is our means of tranforming 
value-sensibility into objects representing our value orientation.

I said, previously:
> Why assume that an ant has the capacity to care about
> any meaning than its own survival?

You replied:
> If you do not think that an ant cares about its own survival,
> then I simply cannot help you understand.

That's a non sequitor response, inasmuch as I didn't deny the ant's survival
instinct.  But it's not "caring" in the sense of human concern or "valuing". 
You understand instinctual behavior, don't you, Mark?  Why can't you concede 
this?

> We need look no farther than our garden (not mechanical)
> to understand transformation (or negation as you call it),
> it is DQ in action.  We do not need to create a hidden aspect
> to existence. Everything is right here, right now, not in some
> endless well.

Well now, that's a much shallower ontology than I would have expected from 
the GD originator.  Everything is right here now.  Where did it come from? 
Where is it going?  And why?  You don't address any of those questions, yet 
accuse me of proposing a "hidden aspect" to existence.  I've maintained all 
along that absolute truth is hidden from us.  That much is obvious from 
reading your analysis.

Can you not understand why such criticisms are tiring?  No wonder the 
Pirsigians are saying you live in an SQ world!

I think I'm up to date with your questions, Mark.  Better luck next time.

Essentially yours,
Ham