SA, [Ron and Platt quoted] --
[Ron, on 6/17]:
There are many types of cosmologies, ranging from theism
to Nihilism to idealism. Pirsig prefers to let the reader parse
that one out for themselves.
[Ham replies]:
That is strange for a philosopher who wants to change
society's perspective of reality. Freedom of choice is
commendable; but isn't it the philosopher's obligation
to define the choices available and present his own
ontology clearly so that his readers can make that choice?
[SA on 6/18]:
BAM! Ham finally put it into words. After all these years
I've been here, I've pointed this out, many have pointed this out
- and now Ham you finally come out and say it. You don't
want people to think for themselves. You believe you know
best. Wow! It's right here, you actually put it into words
after all this time, you braved up.
[Platt, on 6/17]:
"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.
[SA replies]:
Yet, Ham would say the moq does not say that.
Just what is your problem, SA, and why do you persist in speaking for me?
I don't see how anyone could construe my comments to mean that I "don't want
people to think for themselves" or even that I believe I "know best".
You're reading something into my statements that simply isn't there. In
fact, my argument is actually the reverse of your delusionary claim.
What I was actually suggesting to Ron was that in order for people to make a
free choice on an issue they need to know where the controversy lies. Thus,
if a philosopher seeks to advance his theory as superior to others, it
behooves him to make the differences clear. Had you read my comment
carefully, you would have realized this.
The statement from Pirsig's SODV is one I heartily endorse. Of all the
author's writings, this presentation paper comes closest to defining the
author's metaphysical thesis. I have quoted from it both on my website and
in my book. I also think Platt's interpretation of "intuition" as value
sensibility is epistemologically sound and worth considering, especially in
support of Pirsig's statement that "the senses are the starting point of
reality, and values are phenomena".
So, whatever prompted you to post that Ham would disagree, your conclusion
is in error. I suggest that you moderate your animus toward Ham and his
philosophy and allow him to speak for himself. If you have a complaint
about something I've said, kindly do me the courtesy of a direct reply.
Sincerely,
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/
