On Wednesday 19 November 2008 3:01 PM Ham writes to Joe: [Joe]
> IMO There are two ways to speak of the "undefined": > 1. I don¹t know what you are talking about, you haven¹t defined your terms. > 2. It is impossible to define DQ: Defined words are SQ. SOM makes a > distinction between Mind and Matter, and calls it S/O. For Pirsig that was > incorrect, there is no such distinction. ... [Ham] There IS such a distinction, and it is absurd to ignore it or "pretend" it away. We are all 'beings-aware'. Philosophers define 'concepts' not things. Pirsig didn't define Quality because, as he said, "we all know what it is." I don't attempt to define Essence, not because we know what it is, but because the absolute is not definable (i.e., not reducible to finite terms). However, that doesn't stop me from explaining the meaning of the term, the use of analogy, and useful connotations (like Cusa's "not-other") that allow us to construct logical syllogisms for it. Hi Ham and all, [Joe] Pirsig certainly proposed an order in evolution. At the social level he proposed a level which adds something to the capability of an individual at an organic level without destroying the individual. Evolution is addition, not subtraction or displacement. As addition to I accept the distinction between levels. You don¹t accept evolution yet a hummingbird reproduces as capably as a human. Evolution describes some differences in capabilities better than mind/matter. The Absolute is a metaphor. No one has experienced an absolute. Only evolution explains change by addition not syllogisms. For myself as a singer, I am familiar with an 8 level octave where 1 and 8 are doubled in intensity. I model evolution on an octave of seven levels, the last two being indefinable S only. I don¹t accept an absolute¹ in rational conversation. Lack of motion does not deny form. This forum has no provision for discussing matters of faith like absolute. Thanks, Ham. Joe On 11/19/08 3:01 PM, "Ham Priday" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> IMO There are two ways to speak of the "undefined": >> 1. I don¹t know what you are talking about, you haven¹t defined your >> terms. >> 2. It is impossible to define DQ: Defined words are SQ. SOM makes a >> distinction between Mind and Matter, and calls it S/O. For Pirsig that >> was >> incorrect, there is no such distinction. ... > > There IS such a distinction, and it is absurd to ignore it or "pretend" it > away. We are all 'beings-aware'. > > Philosophers define 'concepts' not things. Pirsig didn't define Quality > because, as he said, "we all know what it is." I don't attempt to define > Essence, not because we know what it is, but because the absolute is not > definable (i.e., not reducible to finite terms). However, that doesn't stop > me from explaining the meaning of the term, the use of analogy, and useful > connotations (like Cusa's "not-other") that allow us to construct logical > syllogisms for it. 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/
