On Tues, 6/31 at 1:49 PM Ron wrote:
These concepts about experience are in fact "real",
what gives them reality is their Pragmatic conventionalism.
To say that these concepts are illusionary does not mean
that they do not exist, simply put, they do not exist
as conventionally apprehended.
I have no idea what you mean by "pragmatic conventionalism" or
"conventionally apprehended." Apprehension of objects is universal
experience, is it not? What you seem to be saying is that concepts are
illusionary because objects don't exist as they are experienced. (You
introduced "illusion" here; I didn't.) Since all knowledge is derived from
experience, including scientific knowledge, how do we know that our
apprehension (conceptual universe) is illusional?
Conceptual/perceptual understanding is created by their[?] limits
of apprehension. To be aware of this fact free's one from notions
of absolute "truth". Being free from thinking within one absolute
paradigm
enables one to take on different perspectives, finding the mean,
or value among many truths. This, in light of classical western thought,
is a huge philosophical breakthrough. The foolishness is the belief in
one absolute way to distinguish one absolute truth.
The limits of apprehension are those of the subject or individual observer.
(I assume that's what "their limits" refers to.) I don't view lack of
certainty an asset and question your phrase "freeing one from notions of
absolute truth." We all seek the truth but can only know relative facts.
Finding a mean or average value of Truth is like being a little bit
pregnant, which is hardly a reliable measure of truth. I agree that concede
that absolute truth is inaccessible to man, but disagree that changing
perspectives on something as fundamental as reality advances philosophical
understanding.
Ron [in response to my statement that the MoQ falls short of classical
metaphysics]:
lt is "classical metaphysics" which is limited, so of course it would see
Quality as irrational and illogical, It does not recognize value.
You keep wanting to measure millimeters in inches then complain that
there is not enough clarity.
Am I reading you correctly? The MoQ is founded on Quality. How can you say
that it sees Quality as irrational and does not recognize value?
Measurements are not reductive and I'm not "measuring" anything. I'm merely
suggesting that from the reductionist standpoint the only meaningful
division is the self/other (subject/object) dichotomy which is rejected by
the MoQ.
If the question is raised about the reality of physical existence
then it only stands to "reason" that the fundemental nature is an
assumption, the assumption your argument rests on.
So if, by your own admission, the reality of physical existence
is in question, it would seem your assumption is also in question.
Being in question, it is hardly the "fact" of the matter now is it?
Ron, I'm sure you must know that empirical knowledge is factual, while
metaphysical concepts are theoretical. Unless existence is someone's dream,
it must be derived from a source that encompasses its full potentiality. It
would seem to be a reasonable assumption, given the logic that nothing comes
from nothng. Of course my theory of Essence is "in question", but no more
so than Pirsig's theory of Quality. If we could know ultimate reality as
certitude, there would be no need for philosophy or metaphysics.
I feel a little like Marsha who just complained "I haven't the slightest
idea what you want". Like everyone else here I'd like to see more clarity
in the concepts expressed, leading to more accord among the participants.
Isn't this what we're all aiming for?
Thanks, Ron
Ham
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/
