> > > Ham said:
> > No, values do not exist "outside" of a mind. > > And then, Ham again: > What is there to "figure out"? A few weeks ago, Marsha wanted me to prove > to her that the self exists. "Show me the self," she asked. You said > something about "toddlers knowing better" when I asserted that the universe > only exists for us. Well, if I have to prove that your self exists, maybe > you should ask a toddler! > I have no problem with the existence of a self. I have a problem with "values do not exist outside of a mind" That was specifically what I asked about so I'm not sure why you took it the direction you did. John said before: I do try and think outside of my mind. *A* mind might >> very well be the source of all value, quality, good and reality. >> But *my* mind is not. My mind is just my own little thing >> over here in the corner. >> >> I guess the whole problem I have with subject-based values >> is trying to picture *this* self-centered subject as any kind >> of viable entity. >> > Ham answered back: > The asterisks you use for quote marks enclosing "A" mind and "my" mind > suggest that the primary source is a Creator other than you or me. And you > would be correct. In my philosophy that source is called Essence and is > defined as the "not other" which IS. Essence is not an existent or "thing" > but the ultimate and immutable source of all that is. Of course you won't > see such a source referenced in the MoQ. The author didn't take metaphysics > seriously and especially didn't want to be accused of falling back on > "supernaturalism". Instead, the reality he explores is the experiential > world with no creator. He ignores the maxim 'nothing comes from > nothingness', and explains reality as an ever-unfolding evolution toward > "betterness" with no other purpose for man or nature. The poetry of his > thesis is delightful, but the logic leaves much to be desired. > And now John understands better where Ham is coming from: Well this makes more sense to me than a pure subjectivism that takes self as the source of all thought and everything. So... your main problem with the MoQ is Pirsig doesn't just go for a theistic stance? Because I can see lots of good reasons not to go that way myself. You won't win any friends in the academic world which has spent years and years breaking free from the static dogmas of religion and you won't win in any friends from religion which already figures its got God in its pocket and doesn't need any new-fangled philosophy. > The individual is a "being-aware". It borrows from biological beingness to > experience the otherness surrounding it. As I said before, being-aware is > the dichotomy of existence. Neither contingent can exist without the other. > In the absence of a cognizant self there is no being, and vice-versa. The > human individual is not isolated, but he/she is "estranged" from the > uncreated source. This is what makes man a free agent of value, the result > of which actualizes a relational universe of diverse objects and events. Ok, problem one. How can one borrow from "biological beingness"? I'd say it is just the opposite way. The individual experiences otherness and extrapolates biological being for itself. If there is an order to it, it makes more sense that it flows from sense to being and not the other way around. But "neither contingent can exist without the other" is true, and implies the "order" is probably irrelevant. And what is the cause and evidence of this estrangement from essence? That is another bald assertion for which I see no reasoning. My reference in these matters is Royce, who also holds your Essence, only calls it Absolute Thought; but he doesn't see the need for any estrangement in order for man to know his freedom. > > > How can you logically assert something doesn't exist >> BECAUSE you don't see it. It seems to me the best >> you could do is assert that there is no way to verify >> non-self-aware reality. To actually go all the way and >> say the world disappears when you close your eyes is >> something most humans outgrew in toddlerhood. >> > > It's called "solipsism", John. But because Essentialism is founded on an > uncreated source, only the actualized world of appearances is solipsistic. > Some call existence an illusion, others say it's a construct of value. Don't > be so quick to demean "toddlerhood". Until we learn to perceive the world > as a child does, we are caught up in our own intellectual precepts and lose > sight of the value we are here to realize. Hey, I like that word. Solipsism. Isn't it usually used as a derogation of a philosophy? Too darn solipsistic for me. And I'd never demean toddlerhood. I enjoyed all my toddlers. Now don't ask me about teenagers. The first rule of clear thinking is not to trifle with what is > self-evident. > Or, to paraphrase Occam's razor, the simplest explanation beats out the > complex one every time. > There's a paraphrase I ain't buying. Often simplistic explanations are simply wrong. And what may be evident to your self, is not evident to mine. Idealistically yours, John ------------ Self is simply Choice, so choose 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/
