> Krimel -- > On its merits, I have given your "metaphysical theory" > more time and credit than it deserves.
[Ham] Okay. You choose to continue the endless discussion as to what is dynamic and what is static, how experience breaks down into a tetrology of levels, and what Pirsig's equivalency equations really mean. That of course is an exercise of free choice which is your prerogative as an agent of value in a relational universe. I respect your freedom and will not press you toward an alternate worldview. Before ending this dialogue, however, I want to correct a few misconceptions you've expressed concerning Essentialism. [Krimel] After all, Ham, this is a forum for discussing Pirsig's philosophy. If you had been paying attention over the past three years would notice that I am hardly one of Pirsig's cheerleaders. But do you seriously think we should all become your converts and change the name of the discussion to the MoH? If I have misconceptions about Essentialism perhaps it is due to your refusal to express it in English. As I have said before I suspect that when you actually use English to express your ideas their inherent absurdity is a bit more obvious. [Ham] Like everybody else, you "find value" in the everyday things you experience. But while your sensibility is irretrievably linked to the SOURCE of Value, you experience only what value represents, relationally, in your world. (Even Pirsig has said that "experience is the cutting edge of reality" and that what isn't valued does not exist.) [Krimel] Experience and values are easily accounted for in any number of ways that do not involve wacko metaphysics. One should resort to flakey speculations only after exhausting alternatives. One would hope that the purpose of flakey speculation would be to point the way to a broader understanding, to advance techniques of investigating and explaining the unexplained. Your "philosophy" prides itself in avoiding any contact with the real world. How you can remain smug about this is the real mystery. [Ham] Our existence is framed by time and space, which is the mode of human experience. But we are neither caused by nor derived from these dimensions. The sensibility at the core of self-awareness is negated from Essence to divide it from an insentient otherness. It is this Sensibility/Otherness dichotomy which establishes difference from the oneness of Essence and makes the differentiated world of appearances possible. [Krimel] How you do go on about space and time. It would seem that these concepts are critical to your world view and yet your thinking with regard to them seems hopelessly out dated. You speak of them as though they were optional. It is not just humans that exist in space and time; everything that exists, exists in space and time. They are not so much "causes" as preconditions for existence. Beyond that your oft statement view that time is somehow fixed, is utterly ridiculous. The future is not determined. Neither is the past for that matter. This is the lesson of the past 50 years of thinking in science, mathematics and philosophy. If you want to buck this trend, you need to give some good reason for doing so. Or at minimum you should give evidence of understanding the issues at stake. You do not. Time and space are not hypothetical chess pieces that you can move about according to your whim. They are well studied, thought about and detailed in the literature of science, mathematics and even creative writing. You on the other hand are working with ideas that are 100 years out of date and even when this is pointed out, you ignore the criticism and continue on as though it doesn't matter. But one more time: current thinking on time is that the future is determined by such a variety of factors that precise prediction is impossible. Even God can not say what the future will bring but in your archaic metaphysics the future has already happened. We are not "free" to act. It is our ignorance of foregone conclusions that makes us think we are free. > [Krimel] > You keep saying "nothing can come from nothing" but > this is a testable notion. It may or may not be true and > apparently in the case of the universe itself it may be > utterly false. And as always, you fail to account for where > the primary source comes from. Have you actually > thought about this? [Ham] Yes, but apparently you have not. Everything in existence has a beginning and an end, the alpha and omega of cosmology's entropy. All of existence is "process", which the human intellect interprets as cause-and-effect, starting with creation or the Big Bang. But Essence is absolute, not an existent, so it is not limited by the conditions of finitude, such as space/time, difference, and change. The Essence I have postulated is immutable in its absoluteness, which means that the primary source is "uncreated". This is not a new idea in religion or classical philosophy, and it is the only logical solution to the mystery of creation. [Krimel] I have thought about this enough to know that you are oblivious to the fallacy that you propound here. You say NOTHING can come from nothing but then you say Essence does come from nothing. You are just making up something that violates your inviolable rule. You even have the nerve to claim that Essence doesn't even exist; it is not an "existent." You "postulate" something that does not exist and yet produces existence. Seriously, Ham how can you claim that this make any sense at all? It is not a "logical solution" it is as I have said time and again, mere philosophical spackling compound to smooth over the gaping hole in your argument. What is astounding is your failure to address this issue. > [Krimel]: > You don't actually address what I said. So you confess that > your Absolute reality ultimate thingymabob is utterly lifeless. [Ham] You must be taking "restructuring" lessons from Arlo. I confess to nothing of the kind. [Krimel] And yet your Essence is non-existent. It is lifeless. [Ham after recounting Arlo's efforts to get a straight answer out of him:] Do you see this as anything but the satire of a nihilist? [Krimel] I will leave Arlo to his own effort to get you to be honest in your accounts. I will say only that satire seems to be the only avenue open to anyone attempting to have a serious conversation with you on these matters. > [Krimel] > Again without sensory apparatus nothing gets experienced. [Ham] True. But "experience" is not what undifferentiated sensibility is. That's why I make a distinction between sensibility and experience. [Krimel] Experience is what happens to things that exist. As for things that do not exist, who but you would be so foolish as to speculate on what they do. Your use of sensibility in the context of things that do not exist is simply unintelligible. > [Krimel] > Sense and all of its derivatives in English refer to the five > commonly acknowledged senses which do require neurons. > If you have something else in mind might I suggest you find > a more appropriate term or make up a new one of your own > but please stop abusing the common tongue. [Ham] Neurons or not, the five senses are involved in producing experienced sensations: tactile, visual, auditory, aromatic and taste. These differentiated sensory values are integrated by the central nervous system as "experience". By "sensibility" I refer to the undifferentiated (Essential) Value from which psycho-emotional or esthetic awareness is derived. But if you have a better term for sensibility, I'd be happy to know it. [Krimel] Sensibility I suspect means something that exists and has the potential to activate the sensory systems. The original question was if you take away the brain, its personal history and the present environment what do you have left. Apparently in your case the answer would be a rich fantasy life. [Ham] Absolute Essence is beyond understanding, just as Absolute Truth is inaccessible. [Krimel] OK, for the umpteenth time how is it then, that you claim to understand and have access to it? [Ham] The reason I "seem to regard (this) as a virtue" is that it affords us the capacity to realize value independently without bias. I believe the "innocence" of man's position in existence is necessary for his free choice of values, which is the central morality of my thesis. [Krimel] And yet your version of "free choice" is simply ignorance. It is the feeling of novelty where no actually free choice is possible. Fantasy certainly has virtue when it is understood as fantasy. That does not appear to be your position, however. [Ham] I'm pleased that you take occasional pleasure from my writing, despite your inability (or is it unwillingness?) to make sense of it. Perhaps, in time, the ontology will "sink in" and your comfort will be augmented by the logic of my thesis. [Krimel] Perhaps "pleasure" is too strong a word. Mild amusement might be a better description. One cannot or should not attempt to make sense of foolishness. It is not being closed minded to put a screen on an open door. Having an open mind should not necessitate allowing trash to flow in unrestricted. Your claim that your "thesis" is rooted in "logic" is perhaps the biggest fantasy of all. But then perhaps "logic" is another Hamish terms that really means the opposite of what it means in English. I have listened to and come to understand a wide variety of world views and positions from a host of sources. I have in fact looked over enough of these to have a pretty good sense of when a position is worth considering seriously and when it is just nonsensical raving. Guess which category I think your "thesis" falls into. 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/
