MoQers may appreciate this. Bob Thurman talking on TEDTalks. http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/view/id/130
Like The Edge, TED has a great collection of thinkers talking. http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks Regards Ian On 10/8/07, ian glendinning <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi Ham, response inserted ... > > On 10/7/07, Ham Priday <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > Hi Ian -- > > > > > > > > > Interestingly, the idea that "is not" says no more (about existence) > > > than "is" is the point about negation adding nothing to assertion > > > (about existence / reality) made in a parallel thread. It is simply > > > about one subject communicating with another. > > > > > > It's about nothing more "essential" than language. > > > > I respectfully disagree. > > [IG] Disagreeing with my final Ham-provoking statement ? Or with the > whole preceeding para ? The "It's" in my final sentence was about the > significance of negation ( eg the "is not" statement) > > > Unless language is your fundamental reality, which > > would make you a semioticist, the terms of reality have a specific referent. > > [IG] Well, if you allow me to generalise language to "communication of > information" and information to "significant difference", then I do > often to claim to wear that hat. I often express my view of the > subject-relationship-object triple (called quality by Pirsig, more > fundamental than either subject or object) as "information" - > information being the most fundamental thing I've come across > (anywhere, in physics or metaphysics). > > > To say that "essence" is only a word is simply expressing your denial of it. > > [IG] Well yes, that could have been a point I was making, though I > didn't actually say your "essence" was "only" anything. I said > negation "nothing MORE essential" than language. > > > Mr. Prisig chose to call reality Quality, which has real meaning as a > > subjective assessment of something but cannot be equated with Essence as the > > fundamental reality. > > > > If we assume that philosophers' terms are not to be taken seriously, we are > > demeaning Philosophy. > > [IG] Not demeaning, more de-meaning. Pointing out that reliance on > definitions, that strictly apply in a closed domain of philosophy, is > misguided / misleading (plain wrong) in the wider world beyond the > thought experiments of that domain. Meaning is communicated in active > usage in real life, not by definitions. > > > That's why definitions are important. They define > > the concept--the ontology, epistemology, or cosmology--that the author is > > articulating. > > [IG] Gimme credit Ham. I do know why (and where and when) defintions > are valuable. > > > You may reject the concept, but you have no justification for > > asserting that the fundamental terms are insignificant or groundless. > > [IG] I may, but the point I am rejecting is being missed I think. You > refer to "fundamental terms" QED. > > [IG] Shall I repeat - no MORE fundamental than language (terms). I'm > happy to see some concepts as MORE fundamental than others in the > terminology of any given metaphysics - but I see an important > difference between "more fundamental" (epistemologically - choosing > terms to communicate meaning) and "absolutely fundamental" > (ontologically - actually existing). > > Regards, Ian > > > > > Regards, > > Ham > > > > > On 10/7/07, Ham Priday <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >> Greetings Ian, Marsha, and welcome Dallas -- > > >> > > >> One can be 100% confident until Truth proves him wrong. > > >> > > >> > We could try to reduce "I think therefore I am" > > >> > into "I am" or even just "Is". > > >> > But of course "is" is only true when compared to "is not", > > >> > so there is still some doubt there. > > >> > > >> Right on! As Truth would have it, "is" cannot be without "is not". But, > > >> since being then is a contingency, some people ask: Is what "is not" > > >> contingent upon what "is"? An negative answer argues for Nihilism: All > > >> is > > >> vanity (or nothingness). An affirmative answer argues for Essentialism: > > >> That which is absolutely can give rise to that which appears > > >> contingently. > > >> > > >> What the Cogito should have stated is that "something is". And if > > >> something > > >> is, then "isness" (i.e., Essence) is the fundamental reality, with or > > >> without "is not". > > >> > > >> A good exercise in logical thinking, Dallas. Where do you go from there? > > >> > > >> Essentially yours, > > >> Ham > > >> > > >> > > >> 10/7/07, Ant McWatt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> On 10/7/07, MarshaV <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:Greetings, > > >> >> In what facts are you 100% confident? > > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> Hi Marsha, > > >> >> > > >> >> Literally 100% confident? > > >> >> What about "Something thinks therefore something is"? > > >> >> > > >> >> Or, thinking about Leary's book of 'Psychedelic Prayers', how about > > >> >> "All > > >> >> Things (Must) Pass"? > > >> >> > > >> >> Ant > > > > 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/ > > > 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/
