Krimel [David M mentioned]--
> I have a fairly long list of questions that you are failed to address. > > 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 epistemology? Which of my epistemological terms cannot be known? Epistemology is part of my ontology, of course, but in checking back under this thread I saw no mention of epistemology, or that I was talking specifically about epistemology. > 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? My thesis is that existence is a perceived division of Essence, hence the source of what we experience (i.e., what exists) is a non-existent potentiality. Despite, the awkwardness in terminology, I define existence as that which is experienced in time and space, and the absolute source as Essence. > 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? Not describing "how time works" may be an omission on my part, but that does not make it an error. Moreover, I'm outlining an hypothesis of reality, not proclaiming "truths". > 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? You might as well ask, what's the point of philosophy? > 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? I define all my terms, as you can see in #3 above, for example. The fact that they may be unfamiliar to you doesn't make them "obscure". My aim is to be clear and consistent. (Evidently I've failed in the former.) > 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. I would say you have a right to your opinion. > 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. Physical principles, geometry, even logic apply only to a relational system. I respect these laws, so long as we are discussing "reality" in the context of space/time existence. However, philosophy, especially metaphysics, is not complete IMO if it does not encompass a primary source that transcends the conditions of finitude. > 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. Existential reality is S/O experience; ultimate Reality is not. I'm sorry I don't have Pirsig's gift for prose, and ignore the details you think are important. Your descriptive analysis of proprietary experience is clear and to the point. Existence is not a solipsism, however, inasmuch as our experience conforms to a reality whose properties and dynamics are apprehended universally. > 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. I do not say that existence is the only reality, but only that it is man's reality. Things-in-themselves are phenomena in the minds of man. > [skip] > Actually Pirsig says Quality is undefined. It does not equal anything. > Most of what you say beyond this point is wrong as a result. In Pirsigs's SODV paper, he wrote: "The very existence of subject and object themselves is deduced from the Quality event. The Quality event is the cause of the subjects and objects." He also defines the event as "the point at which subject and object meet." If the event is our sense of Quality (which he does equate with Value), then it follows that we construct subjects and objects from Value. At least, that's how I interpret these statements. As far as they go, they support my ontology perfectly. > 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 and David are exactly right. > 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. All this refers to subject/object intellection and the experience derived therefrom. Objective knowledge is useful for pragmatic applications in a relational world. It doesn't lead us to wisdom or metaphysical understanding. > 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. Clearly, you have a right to your opinion. 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/
