[Ham] > For one thing, any stated proposition that defies empirical evidence should be > duly accounted for. (This would of course include notions like "rocks prefer > a stationary position." )
Pirsig, Galileo & Newton don't think that it defies empirical evidence. Instead of seeing valuing as a human activity that is impossible for rocks, try seeing it as a rock activity that is possible for humans. [Ham] > That the author is unable to define something doesn't make it fundamental. > There is no rule that what is fundamental must be undefinable. But there is. If a definition serves to analyze, when you get to what's fundamental, it must be unanalyzable, hence, undefinable. [Ham] > I've considered it, but it makes no sense epistemologically. If I'm > comprised of Value -- my body, my mind, my experience -- then I'm only able > to recognize what is NOT value. > So you have value sensing value, which is a logical tautology. I'm human but I'm able to recognize what's human. If this be a "logical tautology", so be it. Craig 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/
