Ian, these websites are not unloading, and messing up my computer. I keep having to shut off the computer when I try to enter any of these sites from both times you've sent this post. Is the web address correct? SA
> 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/ > > > > > > === message truncated === ____________________________________________________________________________________ Boardwalk for $500? In 2007? Ha! Play Monopoly Here and Now (it's updated for today's economy) at Yahoo! Games. http://get.games.yahoo.com/proddesc?gamekey=monopolyherenow 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/
