[Ham] Actually it's a mathematical law supported by definitions: 12 divided by two
equals 6, and a dozen means 12. Yes, if it is understood that all truth is relative, and absolute truth is not accessible to humans, then everything we know can be considered an assumption. But who among us can fully participate in the life-experience believing that it's just an assumption? [Krimel] The point is that mathematical laws result on assumptions. Base 10 is culturally determined. Dozens or expressions in base 12 are a hold over from early cultural assumptions. I would say that a life lived clinging to some rigid ideas about an absolute is a delusion. [Ham] The point that I've been trying to make with Arlo and Krimel is that nothing has more truth for the individual than Descartes' 'I think'. Self-awareness is the primary locus of all subsequent experience from which knowledge comes. Therefore, what we have come to learn and understand about the external world (empirical knowledge) can be no more valid than the Self which apprehends it. [Krimel] I don't know why you think you have to keep making this point to me. I think you ideas about the nature of the subject are shallow and miss the mark but I have no doubt that my subjective experience IS my reality. [Ham] The problem for philosophers who exclude subjectivity from existence is that they deny themselves a broader view of reality, along with the teleological understanding that such a concept makes possible. [Krimel] I think your teleological notion is grossly mistaken but I don't see how it connects in the least to subjectivity. [Ham] Essentialism is a concept of reality, much as the MoQ is a concept of existence. An ontological hypothesis affords a reality perspective that can't be confirmed like scientific principles and mathematical laws. An unproven hypothesis can never be equated with knowledge because it isn't "factual". On the other hand, a well-developed ontology can satisfy man's quest for meaning in a way that objective knowledge never can. [Krimel] But when such an ontology runs counter to and leads away from what is confirmed by science and math, it deserves to be rejected regardless of whatever satisfaction it affords. Frankly, if "satisfaction" is all we are looking for heroin is a surer bet. [Ham] If "feeling" is the criterion for what has quality, why do Arlo, Krimel, and Pirsig deplore the spiritual feelings of theists and mystics? If the cognizant individual is only a myth or "abstraction of levels", as they claim, how can one's feelings have any validity? [Krimel] If feelings were the only criterion for Quality then heroin would be legal. It's not that is have problems with spiritual feelings it is the interpretation of them that bothers me. I don't think that because one 'feels' the presence of God that God is necessarily present or that if God is present he is the God found in this tradition or that tradition. Likewise I don't think that because someone says they feel like they are one with everything that they actually are. [Ham] I don't berate people for their political views, Platt. But can there be any doubt in your mind that the predominant morality of this forum is Statist Socialism? [Krimel] I feel berated but coming from you and Platt it just tickles. How your vision of a Randian Raygun world extrudes from your Essentialism is a mystery. But golly, Statist Socialism sure sounds scary. Kinda like Fascist Robber Barons must sound to some folks, huh? 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/
