[Ham] It's remarkable that you can step in as a proxy for Marsha and not only assess the "charity" she has extended to me but the "misapprehensions" in a message she has yet to read. (With this kind of prescience maybe you should
consider working for the CIA!) [Krimel] I know you are easily confused but I never suggested that it was my intent to be a proxy for Marsha. I was saying that since she was gone she could not possibly object to my butting in. [Ham] You must also realize that my MD posts are worded so as correspond with Pirsig's terminology, which can sometimes compound the communications problem. [Krimel] I assume that very few people have read either your "thesis" or your book. I think many people like me would see within the first page or so of your thesis that you are confused and move on. Marsha is very kind and patient sometimes. You should be nice to her. > [Krimel]: > So are you saying that your "free will" is constrained by your > biology or even by what you think is "real"? My, my... [Ham] I think "constrained" is too strong a word. As human beings we can be no more than what biology has afforded us. That's a condition of our being, not a constraint. Free Will, on the other hand, is the capacity to choose our actions within the conditional parameters of differentiated beingness. [Krimel] I am sorry, English is my mother tongue and I assume other English speakers have some degree of familiarity with it. The conditions of existence set limits, I call those constraints. You are free to (and likely to) make up a new word if it suits you. But I don't see what difference it would make. The conditions of our being are such that the range of freedom available to us is very limited. We don't choose the place of our birth or the physical form that we have or the culture we come into or the conditions under which we are raised or the people who are available to associated with or the ideas that are accessible to us or really much of anything at all. Which actions do you think we are 'free' to choose? I will set aside for a second that in your 'philosophy' advocates a form of predestination where in freedom is really just a form ignorance. [Ham] "Private prayer language"? Apparently there is no limit to the hypocrisy you and Arlo will spew to mock an alternative view. [Krimel] What would you call it when someone needs to invent words? > [Krimel]: > This is simply breathtaking. You really have got stones to use this > argument. I have applied this to your "philosophy" many times and > every time you ignore it or run away. I thought you missed the point > completely. I guess this is a sign of progress that you understand it > well enough to try to use it on someone else. But it certainly is just > a baby step. > > Here is the most recent example from my unanswered post of 5/17: > "Uncreated Essence is a myth you have constructed to cover over > many of the gaping holes in your philosophy. It is a fiction that > apparently serves to keep you happily blind to the huge holes in > your conceptual continuity. Mostly you seem to be constructing a > way of drawing a smiley face on emptiness and nihilism. But that's > just the way this "negate" sees it." [Ham] Why the quotes surrounding your own criticism? And exactly what is it you expect me to respond to? [Krimel] As stated I was quoting and earlier post that you ignored. Do try to keep up. [Ham] Look, I happen to believe that everything is derived from an uncreated primary source. Therefore Essence is hardly an anti-climactic "cover over" for what you see as "gaping holes" in my philosophy. Essence is the central theme and foundation of Essentialism in the same way that DQ/sq is the foundation of Pirsig's philosophy. [Krimel] You 'happen' to believe? Like Raygun your beliefs are things that just happen to you? But let's review: you take as gospel to idea that there cannot be an uncaused cause, or that something cannot come from nothing. This is a problem your 'philosophy' attempts to address. You create or appropriate the notion of God to solve that problem. This is the foundation of your 'philosophy'. All you are saying is that something cannot come from nothing... except this. It just doesn't work. Why not something cannot come from nothing except for the Cheshire Cat or the Giant Rat of Sumatra or the Flying Spaghetti Monster or an eternal-all-pervading-consciousness? You are just creating the uncreated to cover over the problem you wish to solve. The essential problem gets shifted to accounting for where the God comes from but you solve it by saying you aren't required to solve it. Come on, Dude even if you take this seriously, surely you can see why anyone else would have difficulty. I do agree it is a central theme and foundation of your 'philosophy' which is why I put quotes around the term. Fantasy doesn't qualify as philosophy. 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/
