Ron -- [Ham previously]: > It's the generalization of specifics that conflates Pirsig's > philosophy. His preferred term "Quality" is used to encompass > both as All. My contention is that this is an epistemological oversight.
[Ron]: > It certainly does seem create a lot of confusion here on the forum. [Ham]: > Value, as I use this term, is specific to the individual. It is > proprietary sensibility -- Pirsig's "pre-intellectual experience". But > it is not experience until it is differentiated by the sensory receptors > and brain of the individual subject. The integration of this sensory > data "objectivizes" being and makes the appearance of reality > different for each subject. > All existence is differentiated experience of what is ultimately One. [Ron]: > I agree with you on this. > Sounds like your ideas fall in with William James "the moral > Philosopher and the Moral Life" where his metaphysical question > is the contention that to be good, something has to be desired > by some sentient being. I would say that for life to have meaning, something must be desired by a sentient agent. I've read James' "Varieties of Religious Experience", but not much of his morality. Can you point me to a quote that expresses this idea? (I might have use for it in one of my essays.) [Ron]: > I think you and Pirsig are closer than what you think but I do see your > point. I understand now why you stress > the individual and the uniqueness of experience. [Ham]: > Only an epistemology that acknowledges the "agency" of existence can > provide a rationale for the meaning of life. IMO this is sorely lacking > in the MoQ. [Ron]: > Following that, the only meaning is what the individual assigns to it > given the unique perspective of the experience of the essent. The assignment of value by the individual subject is itself a purpose with metaphysical meaning. The self is the existential agent that actualizes value as physical reality. [Ron]: > Either I'm understanding Essentialism more or > you are presenting it clearer with every post. Hopefully, it's a little of both ;-) I think I now understand the fundamental differences between these two philosophies better than a year ago, and am trying to sharpen my discussion of them. But this also requires some flexibility on the part of my correspondent, and a "non-prejudicial mindset" such as you have demonstrated is a big help toward this end. Thanks for the encouragement, Ron. Best regards, Ham 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/
