To Whom it May Concern: Typical Ham below. Not a word about the nature of his intuition and how it differs from revelation or faith. No mention of why anyone would should buy his primary source as a first principle. Just more loose talk about scientific blinders and whining about things he doesn't understand. Krimel
_______________________________________ Hi Platt (DMB and Krimel mentioned) -- > Krimel said to Ham: > The Big Bang can easily be conceived as an uncaused first cause that is > neither absolute nor undifferentiated. It is the instant of the birth of > spacetime. While the Big Bang is a "theory." It is supported by lots of > evidence. It does accord with the universe as it is currently understood. > It > does make verifiable predications about future states. It serves all of > the > functions of your "Essence" without the quasi-religious overtones. [Platt]: > A wonderful description of the "Oops Theory" of being. > An uncaused first cause is something supernatural for sure. > But don't tell that to the priests of science. [dmb]: > Yea, the "first cause" is more or less the God of the philosophers, > the God of the Deists. The Big Bang theory, however, is entirely > natural. That's exactly why religious people dislike it so much. > The only unknown, the only area about which there is no > overwhelming consensus, is what happened in the first fraction of > a second, a tiny fraction. ... Other than that, how did you like the play, Mrs. Lincoln? Inasmuch as everything in existence has to start somwhere, this "fraction of a second" that is "the only unknown" becomes critical to all other theories about the universe. Certainly it has been the cardinal issue in metaphysics throughout history. But, as you can clearly see, DMB and Krimel are not about to be seduced by the "supernaturalism" of metaphysics. For them, the "real world" of experience is inviolable, and all knowledge must be empirical -- based on what Science says. I find it ironic that such closed minds remain on this forum to interpret Pirsig's thesis for us. If they refuse to accept anything but a textbook explanation of reality, how can they possibly pass judgment on a metaphysics of Quality? Indeed, how can they appreciate Value even as they experience it? There's a significant difference between imaginative fantasy and intuitive reasoning, and wisdom is not enhanced by limiting one's intellectual perspective. If the legacy of the great philosophers is nothing but meaningless "prattle", I should have thought that Pythagoras, Socrates, Aristotle, Plotinus, Saint Augustine, Leibniz, Hume, Berkeley, Kant, Hegel, Schopenhauer, Spinoza, Peirce, Wittgenstein, Heidegger, and Pirsig would be passé by now. Seems they're still being read, however. (Must have something to do with the power of witchcraft.) Thanks for injecting a bit of "uncommon" sense, Platt. God knows we can use it! Best 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/ 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/
