Ham,
Just to be clear I would say you have not answered even one of the questions
and in fact don't show evidence of understanding most of them. Feel free to
try again.
> [Krimel]
> 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?
[Ham]
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.
[Krimel]
My questions are not specific to this thread. As I understand your
epistemology you claim we derive knowledge through the negation of essence;
relational valuation and all that. If you are claiming that epistemology is
not a concern of yours, ok, my bad.
> 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?
[Ham]
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.
[Krimel]
Exactly, you explain what does exist only in terms of what does not. You
have never, to my knowledge, explained why the absolute essence is needed to
account for anything or how it adds to our understanding.
> [Krimel
> 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?
[Ham]
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".
[Krimel]
But the question remains how to you expect to derive truth by ignoring it.
You make statement about time that are at odds with what time is from both
the physical and philosophic point of view. Time is not static, is not a
fate accompli, it can not be rewound and fast forwarded even by God himself.
You can not just define it to suit your own purposes.
In modern usage the term hypothesis means a proposal submitted for
evaluation. In today's world that would mean a testable proposal verifiable
through empirical methods. Even in an older sense a hypothesis must
withstand reasoned scrutiny. Since your 'hypothesis' rests neither on
evidence or reason how does it qualify as a hypothesis at all?
> [Krimel]
> 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?
[Ham]
You might as well ask, what's the point of philosophy?
[Krimel]
Or I might ask for an example of a philosophy that uses reason and logic to
deny the value of reason and logic and is taken seriously.
> [Krimel]
> 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?
[Ham]
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.)
[Krimel]
Yes you fail to make yourself clear. I see no definition in #3 above.
> [Krimel]
> 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.
[Ham]
I would say you have a right to your opinion.
[Krimel]
I appreciate that but still would like to know how you see your philosophy
as differing from apologetics?
> {Krimel]
> 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]
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.
[Krimel]
Again this all just seems like a lot of effort to justify acceptance of a
primary source. You are not proposing a primary source to fill a god shaped
whole in our understanding. You appear to be making a rationalization for
resurrecting a medieval notion of god. See question 6.
[Ham]
Existence is not a solipsism, however, inasmuch as our
experience conforms to a reality whose properties and dynamics are
apprehended universally.
[Krimel]
This does not provide a reason argument against solipsism. As I have never
heard a compelling argument against solipsism I would truly love too hear
one. On what basis can you say that there is an 'our' or that we have
experience in common. The point of solipsism is that I am constructing
reality in my head. Other people are as much a construction of that reality
as the laws of physics. Saying that existence is not solipsism does not
address the issue. In order to dismiss solipsism you have to provide a
reason or evidence that there is something in existence outside of your own
head.
[Ham]
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.
[Krimel]
It is hard enough to 'prove' one reality without having to deal with
multiple realities. But 'phenomena in the minds of men' is exactly what TiTs
are not. You have this completely backward. The reason we can not have
direct knowledge of TiTs is precisely because all that we have is knowledge
of is what is in our own heads.
[Ham]
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.
{Krimel]
I think you are misunderstanding this and you are not alone. We construct
our individual internal reality by deducing consistent patterns from our
experience. Pirsig is claiming that we extract our understanding of our
experience through a deductive process and that we derive an understanding
of subject and object in this way. This only addresses our construction of
reality not reality or TiTs, those are forever outside of our experience.
[Ham]
Objective knowledge is useful for pragmatic applications in a
relational world. It doesn't lead us to wisdom or metaphysical
understanding.
[Krimel]
There is not such thing as objective knowledge in this sense. There is my
knowledge and your knowledge; two sets of subjective knowledge. Since
neither of us has direct knowledge of 'objects' in a 'real' world. 'Reality'
is a consensual hallucination. But we can validate the consistency of this
share hallucination though mutual agreement. I believe this construction of
mutual agreement gets us all closer to a better understanding of TiTs. What
you proposes offers not even the potential of consensus.
> [Krimel]
> 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.
[Ham]
Clearly, you have a right to your opinion.
[Krimel]
But I am still interested in why you think we should take seriously a
'philosophy' that does not 'save the appearances'.
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/
