Squonk --? ? [Ham, previously]:? > Both arguments assume an "elevation of experience to a? > Cosmic principle", which an Essentialist would reject.? ? [Squonk]:? > I appreciate this has to be the Essentialist case Ham.? > But i think my argument is dismissed out of hand for a? > reason which may become clear.?
> You employ logic in an attempt to justify one of its postulates.? > I don't think this can work. For example, i find the logical proofs? > of the existence of God rather poor.? Ham: I employ logic because you presented me with a logical syllogism. Obviously you were asking me to affirm or deny that the two parallel arguments led to a logical conclusion. Hello?Ham, Hold on a moment please:?you refer here to the presentation of my arguments from analogy. But i am referring to the logic you employ within your own Essentialism. You have not addressed this point Ham. This is most important. ? [Ham, previously]:? > Having said that, I don't believe any philosopher or moralist? > can "identify the shared experience of excellence" or any other? > moral quality [#1].? ? [Squonk]:? > Utilitarian ethics does just this: It observes Human happiness? > to be the good and then postulates methods of maximising it.? > Utilitarianism may be problematic, but the attempt is made.? Ham:? Utilitarianism is the principle of scientific objectivism and is based on the? premise that truth and goodness equates to "what works". s: A. In order to understand happiness one simply has to experience happiness for oneself. If one accepts that it is good to be happy, and if one observes the same behaviour in other people, it can be argued that it is a good for people to be happy by employing it as a postulate in a moral philosophy. Ham: Philosophy cannot make such assumptions because intuitive or intellectual concepts are not empirically verifiable. For example, you can't put into practice or test the theory that God is Good or that the universe is moral. s: B. Happiness is neither intuitive or intellectual; it is a subjective feeling. The whole point of my argument from analogy is to extrapolate from finite experience to infinite Cosmic principle pars Hume: 1. Pirsig has identified the shared experience of 'excellence' in human affairs. 2. Following arguments presented by David Hume in his 'An Essay concerning Human understanding' he has elevated this experience to a Cosmic principle. 3. Ham has identified the shared experience of abstract intellectual discourse - specifically, concerning essence. 4. Following David Hume, Ham has elevated this experience to a Cosmic principle. If these positions can be maintained, it may also be argued that 3 and 4 are specific examples of the more general 1 and 2. [Ham, previously]:? > As for proposition #3, I don't understand the meaning of? > "identified" as applied to "intellectual discourse".? ? [Squonk]:? > I used the word discourse because thinkers communicate within? > and across cultural communities of other thinkers who inform their? > intellectual thought processes. I'm suggesting that within this process? > you may have identified a common concern in the discourse of? > metaphysics, specifically with regard to causation, which may be? > regarded as a Cosmic principle.? ? Ham: Causation is an intellectual interpretation of temporal experience, not a Cosmic principle. If man did not experience reality as a continuum of events, cause-and-effect would be meaningless. s:?Causation is also concerned with effects: How does a tiny Oak seed grow into a huge Oak tree? One argument suggests that it is not possible for the effect to be greater than the cause for example. This is not a temporal question. In fact, this is how God can be derived as the supreme cause; not of temporality, but of ultimate being, with that which is the effect being less than the cause. I suspect you know this Ham. It?is therefore understandable that it may be argued that God is?the ultimate?good. Modern scientific thinking recognises that the Cosmos is actually increasing in complexity, and that complexity?may be a cause of life. This goes against the grain of?entropy. With respect to my argument from analogy, the moq identifies excellence and raises this to a cause. With respect to your essentialism, the cause is dealt with in purely logical terms. ? [Ham, previously]:? > Hume is right that man's understanding of God is extrapolated? > from finite concepts, and any descriptive interpretation of the? > ineffable source is invalid.? ? [Squonk]:? > Or is it? The complete lack of light on a dark cloudless night? > in the middle of the country may be an example of a finite? > experience of the ineffable which could be extrapolated to infinity.? > This may then be used as a postulation or axiom from which to? > derive differentiation as experienced in light.? ? Ham: Again, light and darkness are visual manifestations of essential value, not an experience of God or the ineffable. s: I am being completely literal to begin with pars Hume: a finite experience. Ham: Since all experience is differentiated and relational, any "cosmic" phenomenon relates to existence and cannot be attributed to the undifferentiated source. The most direct proof we have for Essence is its Value, but even this is experienced differentially. s: Well, this is an assertion, not an argument Ham. My argument is that of David Hume; i am attempting to identify finite experiences which may be extrapolated to infinity.?Total visual darkness is a finite experience which can be extrapolated to infinite Nothingness.? ? > What do you make of the 'total darkness' metaphor: The uncreated? > source of your Essence is outside (dark) logic (light)?? ? Ham: Contrariety is the nature of experiential existence. "Coming into the light from darkness" is a metaphor for intellectual enlightenment, as is the maxim "Some things are better." Darkness and light, being and nothingness, here and there, now and then, big and small, joy and pain, birth and death, order and chaos, triteness and magnificence -- they all manifest the polarity and difference of negation. Only the uncreated source is free of difference, and no aspect of existence is identifiable with Essence. s: DQ and sq? The statement,?'Only the uncreated source is free of difference, and no aspect of existence is identifiable with Essence' is an assertion, it is not argued for; it is a postulation or axiom from which a logical progression begins. I am suggesting that the postulation is?an infinite extrapolation from finite experience Ham. ? Ham: If you read my references to Cusanus' First Principle, you'll see that he posits the undifferentiated source as "the coincidence of all contrariety", which he called the Not-other. I truly believe this defines Essence as well as any metaphysical postulate conceived since the 15th century. s: I take my hat off to Cusanus.?And i don't claim to be an excellent logician, but i?don't think you have addressed Hume's argument, rather, you are making assertions regarding a postulate or axiom which can not be argued for. ? Ham: I'm pleased that you are reviewing my thesis, and commend you for keeping an open mind toward unfamiliar concepts This can't help but be productive for all of us.? ? Essentially yours,? Ham s: Me too. I'm enjoying it. squonk 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/
