[Ron]
> I think Pirsig avoids it because issues of an ontological nature
> become of concern regarding discussions about possible descriptions of
> God.
[SA]
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).
[SA]
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.
[SA]
No matter how many times I've mentioned this to Ham, Ham ignores
it.
[Ron]
> Truth is be-ing(existing)
[SA]
Not sure of what connection you were trying to bridge here?
[Ron]
Pirsig describes "being" or existence in
> itself as moral or "truth"
[Ron]
> Conceptual truth is relative to context(cultural, social ect..ad
> infinum)
ok
[Ron]
> Absolute universal truth is undefineable and unsenseable.
[SA]
Is it really universal and absolute then?
Defining something as undefinable and unsenseable really leaves
'something' open.
[Ron]
Now this is a koan of sorts,is the unknowable absolute? it is absolutly
undefineable and unsenseable
by our perceptions, absolutly undefineable, this does leave room for
infinite possibility
therefore it is absolutly open, consequently every definition applied to
it may be absolute
for it is unknowable altogether. It is absolute in it's entirety for it
encompasses everything.
Even what is not. I'm describing the three realms of truth, truth of
being, conceptual truth,
and absolute truth.
absolute truth is not a conceptual truth,
conceptual truth is not truth of being,
truth of being is not absolute truth.
I interpret Pirsig to mean just this,
as well as Ham although I sense Ham focusing on the relationship of
truth of being and absolute truth.
I feel truth is a more descriptive term in lieu of quality or value but
they all relate in the same way
as I stated.The three are distinct yet aspects of the one, to apply one
to another is the root of
confusion.
woods,
Ron
________________________________________________________________________
____________
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/
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/
