John, It's been my experience, that, that is the best way to go about it. No one can really give you a truly satisfactory answer to your questions it usually is best understood through layers of exposition during ones own research and pursuit. -Ron
________________________________ From: John Carl <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Sent: Sunday, May 17, 2009 1:47:44 PM Subject: Re: [MD] Arlo's Rant and 3rd levels Well jeez Ron, thanks for taking up all my free time for the next half a year... Because being such a greenhorn, I hadn't heard about all the essays and papers you mention below and now I'm obsessing over some real questions rattlin' round my brain and I HAVE to get to the bottom of these questions or they are going to drive me nuts. I'm starting with dmb's exposition on Pragmatism - there is already a great deal of dialogue between Royce and James, being lifelong friends as well as philosophical adversaries, but bringing insights from Pirsig to the mix puts much more weight on Royce's side, imo. Today we actually have some empirical evidence which confirms the Metaphysical Ideal which Pirsig terms Quality and Royce terms Absolute and defangs Pragmatism's most strident assertions. Well I'm too scattered as it is. I'll take up that discussion in its proper time. After about six months of reading. Thanks Ron. :) On Sat, May 16, 2009 at 1:51 PM, X Acto <[email protected]> wrote: Matt Kundart recently wrote a nice essay on the subject, also Dmb recently > wrote a rather nice > piece regarding it. Plus the "rhetoric and madness" paper addresses it at > length. > I wrote a rather esoteric essay on the subject titled "the function of > form" on the MoQ.org > opening page, I knew what I meant when I wrote it, but, it's questionable > whether or not anyone > else will understand what I meant. > > -Ron > > > > ________________________________ > From: John Carl <[email protected]> > To: [email protected] > Sent: Saturday, May 16, 2009 3:13:09 PM > Subject: Re: [MD] Arlo's Rant and 3rd levels > > [Ham] > > > Moreover, if, as John says, "the sage proclaims that the self IS defined by > > the ten thousand things and rational intution confirms this," then > subjective awareness (the self-evident experience of phenomena) defines our > existence. > > Does this not support Pirsig's thesis that "experience is the cutting edge > of reality" and that "something that is not valued doesn't exist"? > > > > [Ron] > > > > Here is the idea, self and other do not originate in experience, self and > other originate in the description of experience. This is Pirisigs main > thrust. > > > [John] > > > hooboy. I am confused after all this clarification. I agree with Ham > agreeing with me (big surprise) But I'm sorry that I don't follow Ron's > point at all. > > > Which is especially embarrassing if it IS Pirsig's main thrust because I > really thought after reading and re-reading I actually got that guy. > > > Ron, please enlighten me as to how the description of experience originates > those "things" (self and other) it is intending to describe? > > > And all, let me please regale you with further philosophical meanderings of > my new hero, J. Royce, and his explication of the matter. Follow closely > his argument and where Royce uses the term "error", substitute Pirsig's > quality and tell me where they differ. > > > [Royce] > > > Shall we now give up the whole matter and say that error plainly exists, > but > baffles definition? This way may please most people, but the critical > philosophy knows of no unanswerable problem affecting the work of thought > in > itself considered. > > > To explain the possibility of error about matters of fact seems hard, > because of the natural postulate that time is a pure succession of separate > moments, so that the future is now as future non-existent, and so that > judgments about the future lack real objects, capable of identification . > Let us then drop this natural postulate, and declare time once for all > present in all its moments to an universal all-inclusive thought. And to > sum up, let us overcome all our difficulties by declaring that all the many > Beyonds, which single significant judgements seem vaguely and separately to > postulate, are present as fully realized intended objects to the unity of > an > all-inclusive, absolutely clear, universal, and conscious thought,, of > which > all judgements, true or false, are but fragments, the whole being at once > Absolute Truth and Absolute Knowledge. > > > So far then we propose this as a possible solution for our puzzles. But > now > we may insist upon it as the only possible solution. > > > Either there is no such thing as error, or else there is an infinite unity > of conscious thought to which is present all possible truth. > > > [John] > > > Sounds like Quality with a "Q" to me. > > > I vote for "infinite unity of conscious thought". What do you guys say? > Does this pass for fundamental Reality Ham? > > > I'm off to the lake. Looking forward to food for thought when I get home. > Love to all, > > > John > 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/ > 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/
