Krimel, I disagree with you, but I want to commend you for your rhetoric. You make good points and you make me think.
It's good to think. I think. Santayana's refutation is logical and true. When one is dealing with metaphysics, you can't have presuppositions. Its cheating. Reading Royce has been helpful because his idealism is not presupposed in any fashion. It is reasoned out carefully from mutually agreed upon solid ground. Pirsig of course, uses a more romantical approach and rhetorical style, but does very much the same thing in a kind of mirror effort, but more fun to read. But the heart of the matter is the same and they both illuminate the problem perfectly, as did Platt in a recent posting in a quote from Lila: Positive Value is a logically necessary condition for existence. I'm not going to repeat their respective arguments, but I just wanted to point out the difference between a metaphysics based upon presupposition and one based upon something more solid. John the dialoguer (as opposed to arguer) ------------ It's ALL good... ------------ 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/
