Dearest Ham,

What do you know and how do you know it???  Below you wrote, "You 
must understand that the philosophy I call Essentialism originated 
with me and reflects my own concept of reality."  Without a method of 
testing, a "reasoned hypothesis" may just be a wild guess.  I cannot 
say that this little "talk" hasn't been helpful.  Yet, I have this 
strange desire to paint a woman holding a whip.  [Blackbird fly, 
Blackbird fly... Into the light of the dark black night.]

It is the time of the dark moon.  Is it a snake or a rope?

Lovingly,
Marsha






At 07:33 PM 10/9/2007, you wrote:

>Marsha --
>
>
>
> > I've already stated that there is a relationship between philosophy
> > and science.  The last forty-five years of science has definitely had
> > an impact on philosophical thinking in the West, especially
> > ontology.  At one time metaphysics was considered folly by many
> > scientists and philosophers.  Today its importance is having a revival.
>
>What do you consider that relationship to be?  Science and Philosophy, as I
>have pointed out before, are two altogether different approaches to
>understanding.  The scientific approach is to explore the experiential
>universe for factual knowledge that can be applied within the framework of
>physical laws and principles.  Philosophy develops theories based on logic
>and intuition to explain fundamental reality, such as the nature of being
>(ontology), the means of knowledge (epistemology), and the origins and order
>of the universe (cosmology).  Only cosmology "straddles the fence" between
>Science and Philosophy, mainly because astrophysicists lack empirical
>evidence to support various theories of creation and thus tend to lead in
>formulating the "philosophy of Science."
>
> > You've stated in another post that Essentialism is oriented toward
> > the individual, but you're totally disregarding the metaphysics of
> > other cultures?  You're including only those who think and value like
> > you?  Valid philosophical thinking isn't unique to the Western mind.
>
>I don't see metaphysics as a cultural endeavor.  Logic and intuition are
>utilized universally in the reasoning process.  We're not talking about
>religion here, which has its roots in tribal or cultural ritual and dogma.
>The Eastern religions, as far as I am aware, are not founded on reason but
>on psychic "self-development" through meditation and the elimination of
>desire.  If you read Confucius or Buddha, you're not likely to find a
>metaphysical ontology outlined there.  In fact, Eastern mysticism is as
>averse to intellectual reasoning as Western philosophy is to religion.
>
>You must understand that the philosophy I call Essentialism originated with
>me and reflects my own concept of reality.  It's not an anthology of what
>others, East or West, may have called "essence", and I haven't attempted to
>conform to some collective standard of what metaphysics should be.  The only
>reason I cite other philosophers at all is to support my own ideas or to
>demonstrate the fallacies I see in their reality theories.  Philosophy, like
>experience and value, is a personal matter.  I'm always happy to explain my
>philosophy, or compare it with another if asked; but I will never force my
>ideas or opinions on someone else.  That would be dogmatic and
>authoritarian, and I disapprove of such a practice.
>
>Essentially yours,
>Ham
>
>
>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/

Reply via email to