Ron,
Maybe if Ham had some more poetry in his life, he could make his endeavor
sound as beautiful as you did here. But he avoids this "making sense" stuff to
what he subjects as mere poetry which is a lower form of intellectual species.
The heart could add some color as you did below and actually make his effort
not only more understandable but more alive.
Thanks.
SA
--- On Tue, 8/19/08, Ron Kulp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> From: Ron Kulp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: Re: [MD] is-ness
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Date: Tuesday, August 19, 2008, 7:33 AM
> SA:
>
> Good post. That's exactly why I brought this up.
> For people to be
> able to talk about this. It's getting at the heart of
> philosophical
> inquiry. If people can't dig deep and reflect on
> themselves then
> they'll never honestly be able to understand their own
> motivations and
> premises. I remember asking Ham a long time ago what his
> motivations
> are, why he thinks he needs to come up with a new
> philosophy. He
> couldn't answer. I mean he could have said something
> simple, like, all
> the current philosophies don't achieve what he finds
> reality to be or
> something to that nature. I don't know, maybe he's
> trying to introduce
> an aethists god. I'm not joking. If we don't even
> know what we're
> doing, then as I've mentioned many times before then we
> would just be
> swinging a broad sword blindly hoping to hit the acorn in a
> room full of
> water balloons without getting wet - useless.
>
>
> Ron:
> I think what Ham is trying to do is address the human
> beings need for
> metaphysics without all the complications that theology
> brings.
> That's a pretty big undertaking.
> Arlo posted a quote from Manly Hall:
> "The role of the priest(ess)/shaman/druid is to guide
> one from an
> exoteric to an esoteric understanding, and THIS is (again
> for Hall) the
> moment of Enlightenment, the moment when the human mind
> sees, suddenly,
> the esoteric metaphor hidden beneath the Word."
>
> I see Ham as attempting to bridge that gap in a
> prescriptive way.
>
> Which is rough row to hoe, my suggestions were all about
> streamlining
> the meaning which only aids in understanding this.
> Supplying meaning is
> always
> a tricky business, so to be sure, you had better make
> sense.
>
> The difficulty with supplying meaning prescriptively lies
> in the
> individuality of each persons experience.
>
> I think now, as Ham and I last left things, his thesis is
> very
> close to what Pirsig proposes, in fact it is almost a
> bridge
> from SOM to MoQ, it is more a SOLAQI than any of Bo's
> proposals.
>
> Through my discussions with Ham I have come to respect the
> fact
> that this really matters to him. I sense that he really is
> trying
> to make a difference, not just some pompous intellectual
> selfishness.
>
> I can dig that, I may not agree but I respect his intent.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> 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/
