[Ham]
> 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?)
Ham, I keep repeating back to you what you've
said before, since you always come back to points
already discussed with you. You forget or something.
Remember how you said you say things for controversies
sake to stimulate thought processes.
[Ham]
> 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.
Ham, remember, you said you have learned a lot
about the moq in the last year, but still have much to
learn about it. After repeating certain aspects about
the moq that you repeat to be wrong and the moq
doesn't explain such things, for instance,
individuality. The moq accepts this, but then with a
dq twist (with hot fudge). You say you don't get it.
[Ham]
> 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.
Oh, we've been down this path before. This is
just another way to start alllll over again and
explain what is static, what is dynamic, and how the
moq is intellectual, and social, etc... It's not that
complicated. I say this with serious consideration.
You assert that the primary reality is all in the
head. Use logic only to achieve metaphysics, that's
what you say. And the moq is not so interested in
this use intellect only approach. Read what dmb says,
Ian, Marsha, and others about your misuse of certain
words to prop up your thesis. I've said to you that
you use the intellectual level, but the moq is not
just the intellectual level. Life is much more of an
experience, than all in the head, in the clouds
thinking. You say experience is not worth your time
or something near that. I've said before I don't like
your thesis and therefore I will probably misconstrue
it. Only you know your thesis and this essence
reality. You made it up. Sorry, don't see its'
practical worth.
[Ham]
> 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".
I contort, too. Just as you do Ham. Oh, I don't
want to offend the essentialist, they are high-minded
philosophers. I'm just a poet in their eyes. Same
old stuff Ham. You said nothing new. You don't like
the basic moq stuff. So what's cookin' for dinner?
woods,
SA
____________________________________________________________________________________
Fussy? Opinionated? Impossible to please? Perfect. Join Yahoo!'s user panel
and lay it on us. http://surveylink.yahoo.com/gmrs/yahoo_panel_invite.asp?a=7
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/
