[Krimel] I have a fairly long list of questions that you are failed to address. This latest from you raises a few more. I will list the old ones first.
1. You claim to be addressing epistemology or how do we know things and yet you do so in terms of things that can not be known. If what you are talking about can not be known how can you claim to be talking about epistomoloogy? 2. You claim to have developed an ontology, or statements about what exists. But you do so in terms of ideas that can not exist. If what you are talking about can not exist, how does what you are saying qualify as ontology. 3. You speak of time without regard for what time is or how it works. You seem to think it is optional. How can you expect to derive truth from error? 4. You claim that much of what you say is beyond logic and reason and yet you use something almost like reason to justify it. What's the point of that? 5. You seem passionate about convincing others that you are on to something and yet you use purposefully obscure terms. Do you truly think you are adding precision with all that double negation? 6. How do respond to the criticism that your conclusions are driving your arguments not flowing from them. I would say that what you are doing is not philosophy at all but apologetics. More questions ensue from your latest missive. [Ham] Unlike scientists and historians, philosophers are free to come up with theories that are inconsistent with physical principles, especially those embracing the subjective element which is inimical to the scientific paradigm. Along with other philosophers, I regard space/time as defining the mode of experience rather than an attribute of objective reality. [Krimel] Fiction writers, poets, artist even mathematicians are free to disregard physical principles but philosophy is the love of wisdom. Does anyone think it is wise to ignore the laws of physics? Above Plato's Academy the sign said "Let no one ignorant of geometry enter here." Does not sound like they thought the laws of nature were optional. The history of philosophy is certainly riddled with fanciful, obscure nonsense but this nonsense was most often dismissed when it could be shown that it was not in accord with observation and experience. You can't just redefine space/time to suit your personal preferences. [Ham] So that, for me, time has relevance only to my experience of the world. And since that takes place "now", I consider creation to be a moment-to-moment occurrence. Each experience creates a "reality of the moment". But while the order and configuration of that reality "comes through me", my experience doesn't "invent" it; it merely provides a proprietary conception of it which is different from the conception of anyone else. [Krimel] I think I actually agree with your view that reality is entirely subjective. But I don't think you express it well and you miss some of the implications of this and ignore concepts that are vital too it. A couple of days ago Ron asked you about how you avoid solipsism. I saw nothing in your response that addressed the issue. Each of us lives in a reality of our own making. Each of us exists in subjective space. We accept the existence of others as independent subjects and the existence of an external world. I would submit and have submitted that we do this as a leap of faith as neither reason nor empirical evidence that can justify these beliefs. It is one thing to say that each of us constructs our own reality and quite another to say that this is the only reality. Kant might say we have no basis for talking about TiTs but I do not think that means that TiTs do not exist or that our representations of them are in error. A full accounting of TiTs is not available to us and it is the lack of 'a priories' that inhibits our ability to comprehend such things as the quantum state of particles or a state of matter like a black hole or the Bose-Einstein condensate. But we are still able to agree that such things exist even though they are outside of our ability to perceive them. [Ham] As Pirsig suggests, Quality (i.e., Value) equals Reality. I take his Reality to mean my "existence". Value is sensed pre-intellectually, which means that it is primary to experienced phenomena. Read my last post to Platt, and see if the ideas and references quoted there rule out the hypothesis that what we experience as existence is created by how we intellectualize Value. [Krimel] Actually Pirsig says Quality is undefined. It does not equal anything. Most of what you say beyond this point is wrong as a result. David M pointed out not long ago that the MoQ is really only talking about a subjective construction of reality and I agree. If it is conceived as emerging from the pre-intellectual then it is coming through our biologically adapted sense organs and being compiled into our individual representations. You seem to think this opens the door to any sort of speculation about what we are and how we do what we do. Again that may be fine in fiction and art but it is wrong to say that just because we live in subjective space we can not study how that space is constructed. We can and do study sensation and how sensation gets organized into perception. We do understand a great deal about the physiology and biochemistry of the brain. But this just gets back to your view that all of this can be ignored that philosophy has no obligation to 'save the appearance.' Clearly I think this is misguided. 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/
