[Ham]
> You see, that's what I mean by a verbal panacea. We
> fool ourselves by this
> kind of reductionism. It doesn't explain
> anything--even when you break it
> down into levels and patterns. You can't develop an
> ontology out of
> quality. To say that things are patterns of quality
> has no more meaning
> than saying that things are objects of
> consciousness. Where does quality
> come from (if not from subjective awareness)?
> What is its purpose? How do we account for the
> forms of existence?. Is
> there a reality that transcends the finite world?
> If so, what is man's
> relation to it? If a theory cannot address these
> questions, it is not a
> philosophy, let alone a metaphysical hypothesis.
What smiley face does this transcendent reality
have beyond finite world? If philosophy can't answer
this question, then "it is not a philosophy, let alone
a metaphysical hypothesis." This is seriously how you
sound Ham.
[Ham]
> You won't find me proclaiming Essentialism as
> "absolute metaphysical truth."
> I am on record as saying that the only truth man can
> know is relative, and
> that absolute truth is inaccessible to the finite
> mind.
And this absolute truth is called essence. Hmmm,
who came up with essence. Unless essence spoke to you
one night Ham. It's comedic and serious at the same
time. Your tickling me Ham. It could be true.
woods,
SA
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
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/
