> [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.
Ham:
> Just what is your problem, SA, and why do you persist in
> speaking for me?
Ham:
> 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.
SA: We've been here many times before Ham. I'm not speaking for you, I'm
speaking what you've always said here and leave it at that and you know this.
So it is actually the reverse of your delusionary claim. Up above you said the
philosopher provides the choices for people as to what reality is. So - the
choices have to go through a philosopher according to you, and in the past you
literally state your thesis is a true philosophy and everybody else here is
good prose and poetry, but not real philosophy. Why can't the readers make
their own choice without you feeling that your the authority on setting up the
choices for readers? Your being that middle man in the production and priestly
business.
Ham:
> 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.
SA: I read it carefully alright.
Ham:
> 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.
SA: It was a direct reply. This is a public forum. I knew you would see it,
but since you rarely respond to me, even if I directly reply to you, unless
anybody talks about essentialism on this moq forum, well then, you do get
giddy, rightly so, for now their talking about what you want to talk about.
I'll say woods,
you'll say go back to your woods,
SA
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/
