Krimel, Ian, Marsha, SA, et al --
You are all bound and determined to generate an argument where there is none. (Could it be that you like to argue for argument's sake?) [Krimel]: > I "confessed" to you? Would that be "confessed" as in what parishioner > does to a priest? Or perhaps what one does in a "private" correspondence? > > This is a point I have made several times in the past. > Philosophical speculation as been steadily dissolving into western > culture. At some point I think we would all be happy to see it retained > as the vestigial "P" in the degrees awarded in other disciplines. If "confessed" is too personal, would "confided in" have been acceptable? I was simply trying to make the point that not only you, Krimel, but Ian, and to some extent Marsha, have taken the view that metaphysics is pure fiction and that any philosophy which purports to deal with reality beyond the experienced world is meaningless (if not contemptible) and should be done away with, except possibly where it might be considered to embellish the findings of Science. [Ian]: > 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. [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. So where is the dispute here? Only SA has expressed disagreement with what I've said, but his beef is that I don't understand the MoQ. [SA]: > Ham contorts the moq into something it is not, and no matter > how [many] times people try to help Ham understand that what > HE, Ham, thinks the moq is saying is not what the moq is > stating, Ham will continue to project his beliefs about the moq > in the face of such seemingly well-understood practitioners of > the moq. Ham, you don't understand the moq. > Do you understand that? If everybody didn't have his own understanding of the MoQ, there would be no need for an MoQ Discuss forum. I'm not attempting to explain the MoQ, I'm only citing what I consider to be its major differences with Essentialism. Since both philosophies have Quality (Value) in common, the only way to compare them is to pick out the concepts on which Mr. Pirsig and I disagree. I can't address SA's blanket accusation without knowing the particular statements he thinks I've misinterpreted. I'll make it easier for him. Although I quoted them previously to Ian, here are some statements by RMP (his annotations to the Copleston essay) that I find unacceptable for the reasons I give below. RMP: "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." HP: Essentialism holds that the universe is essentially amoral, and that morality (in the social sense) reflects the collective value perception of the independent self (in the proprietary sense). RMP: "The MOQ, like the Buddhists and the Determinists (odd bedfellows) says this "autonomous individual" is an illusion." HP: Essentialists, unlike the Buddhists, Determinists and MoQists, say that autonomy is the freedom to choose, which is possible only for a valuistic agency that is separated from the primary source RMP: "The individual man is primarily a biological organism." HP: The individual man is primarily the agent of value-sensibility RMP: "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." HP: Essentialism would not deny 'God' as a supra-natural term for primary Essence. We recognize that while God traditionally represents the metaphysical object of man's spirituality, it is neither an object nor a Being but the absolute, uncreated source of existential Awareness, Value, and Freedom. In this regard, Essentialism is neither theistic nor anti-theistic, and it is certainly not nihilistic. There, my spiritual friend. You now have some specific statements you can ruminate upon without having to concern yourself with any of Ham's "contortions" that might offend the MOQ "practitioners". 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/
