Ham:
Ron, I am defending my insights as the author of a metaphysical thesis. I am
not "insisting" on anything, especially a "collectivist view".
Ron:
When you begin to label someone, a nihlist in particularly distainful manner,
because they have,
after much inquirey into the commonly held concepts about the nature of
experience(metaphysics)
found that the entire enterprise of the universal understanding of metaphysics
is faulty at root,
I begin to lose compassion for your efforts. When it comes right down to it,
you feel your convictions
are true. Your wish, for all to accept them as true. Even a metaphysic based in
individuality is
collective if it all revolves around one beings particular expereince and views.
Ron:
> Metaphysics is based on a collective universal belief about
> experience, often those who do not share that same belief
> being ridiculed, as you often do to those who disagree with
> your view of that wager, in fact if I was God, I'd call that a
> chicken-shit hedge all your bets move only a spineless timid
> soul with no convictions would make.
>
> It, to me expresses how little confidence you have in your
> own beliefs.
Ham:
You are sounding more like Arlo and DMB with each post, and your definition of
metaphysics is sorely misinformed. There is no single "universal belief"
called metaphysics, collective or unified. Metaphysics is the branch of
philosophy that examines the nature of reality, including the relationship
between mind and matter, substance and attribute, fact and value. It includes
ontology (the nature of being), cosmology (the causes and dynamics of the
universe), and epistemology (the acquisition of knowledge). Any philosophical
theory that addresses these issues may be called metaphysical.
Ron:
Interesting how you start the explaination of the term metaphysics as having
little to do with universal
understanding then cite Aristotles method of universals for definition.. It is
just Aristotles organon
which defines the very term..........universally.
Ham:
I've given you no reason (as Arlo would put it) to get your drawers in a
tangle. I continue to participate in the MD because a few have expressed
interest in the basic concepts of Essentialism and because I share their
interest in value. Since you draw conclusions from experience (with the help
of Pirsig), your beliefs lie elsewhere. Fine, we agree to disagree. Then why
do you still find it necessary to attack me?
Ron:
Despite your faultlesness I felt insulted by your comments. Plus I thought
Pascals wager
was a rather flimsy cowardly response to a important question of conviction and
belief.
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/
Now Ron says...
Ron:
> And this seems to sum up our differences of opinion Ham.
> I am not a betting man. I prefer to draw conclusions from
> experience.
>
> To me, that wager is stacked. Metaphysics, especially your
> own is the insistance of a collectivist view based on one
> person's experience. Before you go off on that statement,
> YOU are insisting that your insights are correct and that
> they are what's best for humanity.
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/
