[Ham]
> I like your title, but what is the paradox? Now
> that Ant has picked up on
> your complaint, I wish one of you would explain what
> is paradoxical about my
> criticism.
The very things you complain about the MoQ are
the very things found in your thesis as well. So you
complain about the MoQ, and others complain about
Essence, but the complaints are the same. It's
strangely loopy.
[Ham]
> Read my statement again. I said I MIGHT be accused
> of "inventing" Essence, not that I HAD been.
> This rounds out my earlier statement that I do not
> use definitions "to
> explain something away". What have I said that
> leads you to suspect that
> Essentialism is not my thesis? If you've located
> another author espousing
> this thesis, I should know. I've been searching for
> such a source for a long time.
Paradox #1: The MoQ is something made-up by
Pirsig. Pirsig created it like an artist.
Essence IS Ham's thesis,
something he made up. Ham created it like an artist.
Can anybody that understands the MoQ argue with
what I've settled upon here?
[Ham]
> I think you're aware that when Pirsig was questioned
> about his metaphysics,
> he asserted something to the effect that metaphysics
> is definition, and to
> define a word like Quality is to destroy the
> concept. That's not playing
> according to Hoyle for a philosopher; it's what we
> call "weaseling out". I
> admit that Essence is indescribable in relational
> terms, but the concept is
> definable. I define it in my Glossary thusly:
> "Essence -- The ultimate, unconditional, negational
> Source and/or "whatness"
> of reality." Essence is fundamental, because
> nothing can come from
> nothingness. Quality is not fundamental because it
> arises from the relation
> of subject to object -- the created dichotomy which
> Mr. Pirsig "explains away"..
First, Quality doesn't arise from subject and
object. Subject and object arise from Quality, but I
understand you don't understand the MoQ so I'll move
on to Paradox #2.
Paradox #2: Quality is defined as the
undefineable. It is a source. It is not conditioned
to be anything in particular for that would be its'
value only. It is best to say it is the "whatness" or
"suchness" that Zen refers to.
Essence is defined as
incomprehensible. It is a source. It is not
conditioned to be anything in particular for that
would be its' value only. It is best to say it is the
"whatness" or "suchness" that Zen refers to.
Can anybody that understands the MoQ argue with what
I've settled upon here?
> [Ham]:
> I've made the argument in previous discussions.
> Value and Quality are
> esthetic psycho-emotional responses of the
> individual to experience.
> Experience is a subject/object dichotomy.
How have many people around the world not seen
this dichotomy as the experience? I really don't go
around seeing subjects and objects split from each
other by a black hole. I notice a streaming
continuing of events. The wind does not move the
leaves due to one having to be a subject and another
an object. It is an event called wind moving leaves.
The heart feels good and I walk on the earth are not
needed a subject and an object to define this
experience. It is merely an experience of the heart
feeling good as I walk on the earth. But I understand
you don't get this, so, I'll move on.
[Ham]
> Therefore, a philosophy that
> doesn't acknowledge SO can only explain Quality or
> Value by defining it as
> something that is not evident to the subject. (In
> other words, by
> redefining it as primary to existence, which it is
> not.)
It is not primary to existence, why?
[Ham]
> Moreover, if Value were not sensible, we would not
be capable of
> smelling the flowers or making
> moral decisions, which is (or at least should be)
> Pirsig's moral thrust.
Sure value is sensible. But I don't have to
separate the parts of this experience to live the
experience as it truly is, which is a whole event, not
of subjects and objects separated, but of me smelling
flowers and making moral decisions. Each of these
parts impact each other as one complete event. This
event wouldn't exist if this event wasn't organized as
one event separated into subjects over here and
objects over there. I'm referring to the event, not
the parts.
SA
____________________________________________________________________________________
Be a better Globetrotter. Get better travel answers from someone who knows.
Yahoo! Answers - Check it out.
http://answers.yahoo.com/dir/?link=list&sid=396545469
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.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
