> {Ron]
> If I may stick my two cents in, I think Ham feels
> focus on the
> development of the relationship
> between the individual and reality is of more merit
> than developing
> concepts about reality and
> it's workings.
Also, when Ham is assured that the moq includes
the individual, well, Ham denies this is true. If
that's what he believes, then nobody can change his
mind.
[Ron]
> Although I do not think Ham has a problem with
> Pirsigs method, he has a
> problem with his
> ontological focus or lack thereof in the traditional
> sense.
What is traditional sense?
[Ron]
> I think Pirsig avoids it because issues of an
> ontological nature become
> of concern regarding
> discussions about possible descriptions of God.
In Lila, godhead is mentioned, the Great Spirit
or was it Great Mystery was mentioned as dq, too. I
do see your point here as to not associating Plato's
Christian God. There has been overlap on this point
throughout history.
[Ron]
> Pirsig skirts ontology because it deals with
> the study of conceptions of reality, MOQ is a
> conception but it's a
> conception about dropping
> conceptions( which Pirsig violates when he posits
> the conception of a
> moral universe).
Moral is creative and thus, good. It does seem
the moq is stating the universe is evolving towards or
presently is good and generative. Life breaths. Are
we saying the universe is hell, and having babies and
life forms is bad? Maybe? Is it THAT relative? The
moq levels are not that relative, but maybe some
people are. I don't think we can measure the amount
of life in the solar system, and give a blanket
statement that the solar system is bad because only
earth has biological, social, and intellectual
patterns, can we?
[Ron]
> In effect Pirsig utilizes radical empiricism on the
> molecular scale to
> define moral or truth
> as a matter of what exists in a relative context.
> So, to address Hams assertion Pirsig describes
> "being" or existence in
> itself as moral or "truth"
> or "Being is truth" Ham says not so, being is a
> shade of truth but it is
> all we can ever experience
> of truth, "real truth" is absolute undefineable and
> unsenseable in it's
> entirety. Pirsig says
> the same of Quality.
No matter how many times I've mentioned this to
Ham, Ham ignores it.
[Ron]
> Truth is be-ing(existing)
Not sure of what connection you were trying to
bridge here?
[Ron]
> Conceptual truth is relative to context(cultural,
> social ect..ad infinum)
ok
[Ron]
> Absolute universal truth is undefineable and
> unsenseable.
Is it really universal and absolute then?
Defining something as undefinable and unsenseable
really leaves 'something' open.
woods,
SA
____________________________________________________________________________________
Need a vacation? Get great deals
to amazing places on Yahoo! Travel.
http://travel.yahoo.com/
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/
