Hallo, David... glad you touched that subject.
cheers, friend, fernando. > Hi Ham > > An interesting exchange, I think we have managed to understand our > differences > now. > > To some extent I favour Pirsig over Hegel (undoubtedly the greatest ever > metaphysician) for democratic reasons. Understanding Hegel is much much > tougher. Almost an impossible effort. Hegel has his value, in fact,precisely > when his > conceptual framework seems to reveal patterns in experience and history > you cannot see without them. But for payoff against effort I'd recommend > reading > Pirsig to anyone who is not a fully paid up and addicted philosophy junky. > And once again what I have read of your thesis it is an impressive > achievement > in terms, as Hesse would say, the 'glass bead game', but I doubt that it > will > change our world. > > Thanks for the discussion I enjoyed it. > David M > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Ham Priday" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Tuesday, December 11, 2007 5:34 AM > Subject: Re: [MD] Hume's Post-it to Ham > > >> Hi David -- >> >>> Here's how I see it. Pirsig does do metaphysics, it's called >>> the MOQ. But unlike earlier metaphysics he tries to keep it >>> to a minimum. Why? because if you can make sense of >>> experience by going beyond it the least possible then you >>> are most likely to have gone least wrong. >> >> The way I size up your rationale, it's a good thing to make sense of >> reality >> as long as we don't stray too far from experience. In other words (to >> paraphrase your author), some things are better than others, until they >> get >> "too good". If the scientific method were based on the premise that a >> minimum of understanding is better than the maximum, do you suppose we >> would >> have ever have eradicated polio, invented computer technology, landed on >> the >> moon, or cracked the atom? In the search for truth about reality, is >> clinging to the illusion of experience "safer" or more efficacious than >> going all out for a "breakthrough"? >> >>> So keeping close to experience he says lets postulate >>> two ontological concepts: DQ and SQ. Can (using just >>> these and the idea of levels of SQ) we make good sense >>> of experience? The answer I'd suggest is yes. A vast >>> improvement on the mess and problems of SOM >>> philosophy and metaphysics. Us MOQers accept >>> metaphysics, we call it the MOQ, but we keep it to a >>> minimum and find that this is good. You seem to think >>> that unless you start creating a great host of pointless >>> concepts it is not real metaphysics. I disagree and hope >>> you can see this point. >> >> I understand your point, but do not agree with it. A lesser truth is >> never >> better than the "whole truth". And while the whole truth of reality is >> beyond man's experience, the philosopher works on the presumption that it >> is >> possible to conceptualize intuitively what we cannot deduce >> experientially. >> This is the aim of metaphysics, but development of metaphysical theories >> is >> impeded by the tenacious grip of objective reality on man's perspective. >> Only logic and intuitive reasoning can free us from this existential >> delusion. >> >> MOQers accept metaphysics in name only--as the title of an existentialist >> philosophy that is anything but metaphysical. The author himself despised >> metaphysics and the definitions it requires. "Keeping it to a minimum" by >> euphemistic references in a fictionalized novel is not my idea of a >> metaphysical thesis. >> >> The fact that you regard my concepts as "pointless" only indicates that >> you >> fail to see the point. I happen to hold the same opinion concerning >> Pirsig's four levels of Quality. To me, trying to figure out which level >> Intellect belongs to is like asking how many angels can dance on the head >> of >> a pin. As a firm believer in Occam's razor, I can assure you that every >> concept I've posited is fundamental to the overall philosophy of Essence. >> But, of course, if you reject the thesis as a whole, the postulates will >> seem meaningless. Which is precisely why the objectivist mindset is >> closed >> to metaphysical reasoning. >> >> Sorry, David, but "playing it safe" in philosophy is a form of >> equivocation. >> More temerity is needed if we are to make significant inroads in >> philosophical thought. >> >> Thanks and 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/ > ----- Final da mensagem de [EMAIL PROTECTED] ----- 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/
