Ham, just two thoughts in response "metaphysics held in contempt by the group" ?
I doubt it. Not contempt - those of us who find metaphysics unnecessary are not the whole group, and certainly not a matter of contempt, but one of serious consideration, moving beyond metaphysics. "Ian, you can't "liberate" yourself from the facticity of life by dismissing its reality." ? What ? I don't dismiss the reality of existence, I actually said I don't deny it - that would indeed be nihilistic. It's all real. The point is that the value is in the meaning exchanged and communicated, not in the ontological base. Ian On 10/12/07, Ham Priday <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Ian -- > > > > Interestingly you bring in the "anti-theistic" angle. Dennett > > concludes his "Breaking the Spell" with the idea that proving the > > existence or nature of God (the first cause in the black hole at the > > centre of things) on way or another is ultimately uninteresting for > > the same reason. > > To better answer you, and to respond to a similar note sent to me off-line > by Krimel, I started looking for what McWatt had said on this topic. Since > his doctoral thesis had been removed from the archives, I went to Pirsig's > website (which Ant maintains), and found these notes typed in red by the > author on Copleston's essay: > > "The MOQ not only holds that there can be morality without the creation of > an independent self, it holds that nothing whatsoever is apart from this > morality." > > "The MOQ, like the Buddhists and the Determinists (odd bedfellows) says this > "autonomous individual" is an illusion." > > "The individual man is primarily a biological organism." > > And, under "the Development of Idealism": > > "The MOQ would add a fourth stage where the term 'God' is completely dropped > as a relic of an evil social suppression of intellectual and Dynamic > freedom. The MOQ is not just atheistic in this regard. It is > anti-theistic." > > The sudden realization that I could not agree with any of the above > annotations by the hand of Pirsig was disheartening, to say the least. It's > no wonder that metaphysical theory is held in contempt by this group. > > Now you say: > > I find this liberating rather than nihilistic. Free to turn away from > > obsession with the black hole at the core of a metaphysics, free to > > look out at value in the real world. (This is not a nihilistic denial > > of some reality existing at the centre - just the pragmatic conclusion > > that it's not the most important problem to address it.) > > Ian, you can't "liberate" yourself from the facticity of life by dismissing > its reality. Whether "ultimately uninteresting" or not, you can't ignore > the fact that existence is a mystery whose truth is inaccessible to human > experience. This is what gives philosophy the edge on empirical knowledge; > it offers man a perspective that transcends causality and finitude, allowing > him to see that value points toward a higher reality. Science and > technology are designed to address pragmatic conclusions of "the real > world." Krimel just confessed to me his belief that "Philosophy is simply > disappearing, and the sooner the better." As you seem to think that > pragmatic solutions are the most important problem to address, I assume you > share his opinion. > > I had intended to take up the importance of "definitions" with you, but, > under the circumstances, it would be an exercise in futility. > > Thanks for laying it on the line, and enjoy your liberation from > metaphysics. > > Regards, > 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/
