Sorry to hear that SA, these links work OK for me, and I have many more links to the TED site on my blog. They seem to have their own embedded video player, which works fine for me ... may require java or flash on your desktop, usually you'd get some warning about that. Ian
On 10/10/07, Heather Perella <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 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/ > 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/
