Read my lips Ham I didn't say you can't name it I said "we might as well [give this thing] a name" Ian
On Wed, Jan 21, 2009 at 9:28 PM, Ham Priday <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Ian -- > > > Ham said: > "My criticism [of the MoQ] concerns the flawed epistemology that > an aesthetic sensibility such as 'beauty', 'importance', 'quality' or > 'value' can stand independently as the ultimate reality." > > Ian: >> >> It can't Ham, but neither can anything else actually be an independent >> foundation, nothing we can name anyway - that's the point. The >> groundlessness takes some getting used to, so we might has well give >> this ineffible thing a non-misleading name, whilst we get on with the >> practicalities of life, a name that doesn't suggest something fixed, >> tangible and objectifiable. > > Why can't we name it, even it is ineffable or indefinable? I have chosen > the name Essence because it is the absolute and essential source of all > experienced otherness. You may prefer to call it God, Creator, or the > Itself. The point is not that ultimate reality is "nameless". It's that a > groundless universe cannot account for existence. An ontology that > postulates Value as the ground or primary source is illogical because it > presupposes man's existence, if not also "value-preferring" objects. What > you end up with is a philosophy with a false epistemology and no > metaphysical foundation. > > Thanks, Ian. > > --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/ > 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/
