On Tue, Jun 17, 2008 at 7:41 AM, Krimel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: 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 > > Speaking of scientific blinders, here's one that goes to the heart of the MOQ:
"The Metaphysics of Quality follows the empirical tradition here in saying that the senses are the starting point of reality, but -- all importantly -- it includes a sense of value. Values are phenomena. To ignore them is to misread the world." (SODV) Reality in the MOQ is a "vague sense of betterness" prior to conception and definition, i.e., intuition. Without it, science would never have begun nor advanced beyond the ancient Greeks. Platt _______________________________________ > > 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/
