From: hampday@earthlink.net
Date: Sat Sep 17 2005 - 22:55:22 BST
Hi Platt --
> I think what you see here is a prima facia case for the pervasiveness of
> value reality. To participants, some threads have more value than others.
> From birth to death, life is is just one choice after another, including
> what we choose to pay attention to :-)
What is the prima facie evidence that value is reality?
I once asked my old friend, the Professor (who resides in the western part
of your fair state), what he thought the purpose of Philosophy was. His
answer: "To tell us what is important in the real world."
I saw this response as having two parts -- the first was a definition of
(his) Value, the second defined (his) reality. What he was telling me is
that Philosophy has personal value to him only insofar as it is useful in
dealing with the empirical world. I know that's what he meant because when
I explained my interpretation, he expressed his total agreement with it.
Now, as you have elected to define Value before Reality, let's look at the
"evidence" you have presented:
1) "Some threads have more value than others."
2) "Life is one choice after another, including what we choose to pay
attention to?
Isn't your "prima facie case" really based on the fact that "some things are
more important (to you) than others"? Is there any significant difference?
You like music and art -- they are important to you.
You like to discuss philosophy with others -- that is important to you.
Hence, what you "choose to pay attention to you" is important.
If one thing is more important than another, it has more value to you.
I'm not criticizing your motives or your reasoning. Actually, I think most
of us would accept the "importance" concept of Value. All I'm saying is
that this is a subjective judgment call that relates to the individual's
proprietary world.
I'm trying to probe beyond egocentric satisfaction to build a case for Value
in the metaphysical sense. If, as I believe, Value is not simply a metaphor
for what's important, then it has to be established as a principle of
Reality. To do that we need to postulate an ontology for Reality --explain
what causes it, how it takes the shape and form of the cosmos, and what is
man's role in it.
I've already done much of that, but there are several gaps that still
require more precise elaboration. The MD is doing the same thing in a
"free-style" debate that lacks direction and coherency. But I'm learning
much from these discussions, such as how people think, what concerns them,
what most puzzles them, and which concepts are the most difficult to
communicate.
Incidentally, in the "most difficult" category I place the following:
1) The concept of proprietary awareness. (That, I admit, surprised me.)
2) The concept of a primary source. (Not so surprising, considering the
MD's atheistic position.)
I don't recall asking you, Platt: Where do you stand on the primary source
issue? (Please try to avoid the words "quality" and "value" in your answer,
if at all possible.)
And let me know if you see any real distinction between what you call
"value" and what you consider "important".
Essentially curious,
Ham
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Sep 17 2005 - 22:58:36 BST