[Ham] > I see no difference between a pattern and a thing-in-itself. This is part of > your trouble. If there were TiTs, there would be only one correct way to apprehend them. But like in the "duck/rabbit figure", there can be more than one correct pattern that emerges.
[Ham] > Philosophical theory is not a cumulative discipline like the physical > sciences. This is minority view. Most philosophers hold that there is such > progress in philosophy. [Ham] > The value of an idea is timeless Not so. The value of an idea is relative to > its circumstances. [Ham] > it is small-minded to regard an idea as having special significance simply > > because it is "modern". No. That an idea is currently valuable is the most > important measure of its value. [Craig, previously] > The better view is determined by its explanatory value. [Ham] > I posit Absolute Essence as the uncreated, undifferentiated, > and unchanging source from which all otherness is negated. > Pirsig posits DQ as "the Quality of freedom [that] creates this > world in which we live, these patterns of static quality, the quality of > order [that] preserves our world." > Which view has more "explanatory value"? I see no explanatory value in the view that our empirical world has its source in anything " undifferentiated and unchanging". Craig 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/
