SA, I was struggling. You did seem to get to the meat of the acorn quite easily. Thanks.
trees, Marsha At 08:13 AM 10/10/2007, you wrote: > [Ham] > > For example, it seems to me that Pirsig has taken > > morality out of the human > > domain and applied it to the universe at large. > > Well, if the universe is > > moral, so is nature and nature's man. > > Way back when I first started I said to you that >human beings are in the universe, and it is very, very >easy to understand the well-discussed concept in the >moq that human beings are a part of nature. This has >been much of the meat of the moq, but you are >convinced that human beings are separate from the >universe and project your idea onto the moq. > > [Ham] > > Why, then, should anyone strive for > > morality? What purpose does life serve if nature is > > innately moral? > > How moral is a piece of dirt? Moral enough, but >when compared with the other levels dirt is moral >enough to not be destroyed by the higher levels, but >the higher levels are more moral. But you project >human concepts upon the universe, so, a concept such >as value or moral only has human qualities to your >understanding. But the world includes humans and >human qualities, but moral and value are not >restricted to human qualities, so, what good is a >piece of dirt? > > > [Ham] > > Pirsig suggests that we try to "discover" that >principle on > > the premise that "some > > things are better than others". That would make our > > role in existence > > discovering its Quality or Goodness rather than > > actualizing it through our > > decisions and behavior. > > Oh how quickly you forget the intellectual >level, but that's your job. You are to not understand >the moq, and say stuff about the moq that is not >thought through very well. I'm sure I didn't think >through on your essence very well, but I don't like >your thesis that much and you don't like the moq that >much so we can not put our full thought into our >respective dislikes. > > [Ham] > > For me, > > And what you say metaphysics is, is the holy >bible on metaphysics, correct? I don't know how many >times I've seen you play somebody off as not 'being >philosophical'. > > [Ham] > > metaphysics is the theory of reality beyond > > experiential knowledge. Such > > theory can only be hypothetical, of course, so I can > > offer no "empirical > > proof" for my metaphysical concepts. > > Some people want to be able to acknowledge this >world, the wind blowing, the laughter of children, >etc... You like to offer a reality that is has ones >'heads in the clouds'. I'm not being degrading. I'm >trying to anaologize your position and how some have >turned away from this line of thinking. Some people >have found the acceptance of being a part of nature as >very real, as real as a rock and a lady's smile. > > [Ham] > > All knowledge comes from experience, but if you base > > > your reality perspective entirely on knowledge, you > > will gain more from Science than Philosophy. > > Ah, but the moq discusses not only three other >levels that differ from the intellectual level, but >also a dynamic quality about the world that is >unknown. Hmmm, these simple understandings of the >moq, that Ham continues to state the moq doesn't >provide -?- > > [Ham] > > The latter draws on logic, > > intuition, and reason. > > Instead of exploring "new frontiers" of knowledge, > > which is as fallible as > > experience, Philosophy (especially metaphysics) > > attempts to identify the > > fundamental nature of reality and apply reasoned > > hypotheses to account for > > what we experience. > > "for what we experience", hmmm... > > [Ham] > > You say that "by demanding that it include a primary > > source and purpose, I > > think you are promoting > > unnecessary restrictions." I don't see that at > > all. For me, failing to > > consider primacy and purpose imposes an unnecessary > > restriction on > > understanding. It also reveals a prejudicial > > attitude toward spirituality > > and supra-natural or transcendental beliefs. > > (Another reason for my use of > > the offensive term.) > > Dynamic quality has been accepted by an unknown >number of people as where the spiritual, mystic sense >of the moq steps in. Even Pirsig mentions this. I >don't know about transcendental admittedly. > > [Ham] > > These are valid questions, Marsha, and they > > demonstrate that you are > > thinking... > > I wonder what she or others are doing when not >discussing essence thesis? Not thinking I guess. > > >just on the side-lines commenting, >SA > > > >____________________________________________________________________________________ >Take the Internet to Go: Yahoo!Go puts the Internet in your pocket: >mail, news, photos & more. >http://mobile.yahoo.com/go?refer=1GNXIC >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/
