Thanks Ron, I've really been enjoying it. On Sun, May 17, 2009 at 5:59 PM, X Acto <[email protected]> wrote:
> 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/ > 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/
