On 27 May 2009 at 6:13, John Carl wrote: > > > > So long as basic premises remain in dispute, agreement will be > > a dream. Same holds for politics. > > > How long do basic premises remain in dispute? I don't mean to sound > impatient; I mean I just got here and everything but I was hoping we'd have > agreement on basic metaphysical premises all wrapped up by next week.
Hope springs eternal. > And one wandering wonder about Pirsig's Quality: It's a _good_ thing, ain't > it? Like when I say "this tool has quality" I don't mean just value, I mean > GOOD value. I was under the impression that the metaphysical basis of > everything was a "good" thing. Like that Schopenhauer guys says it's > beauty. (Sounds like a smart guy, has he posted anything lately? Maybe I > will start poking around in the archives) > > But when Ham speaks of essence, well that sounds neutral - value free. > Krimel's physical base seems like just a plain old physical base, something > you set a vase on, value free. Or rather, perhaps having value as in > different values, but no such thing as good and bad. > > In that case, we can simplify all the disputation into two simple camps - > those who believe in a good metaphysics and vs the ones that think "good" is > just something humans have invented and its all subjective. Sure, but you still have the same old arguments. Krimel thinks his material metaphysics is really good compared to Pirsig's. Ham thinks his philosophy of Essence is better than the rest. Those who have been born again believe God is the answer to everything. It's up to each individual to decide for himself what's best. Personally I'm with Pirsig. Platt 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/
