On Mon, Jul 6, 2009 at 3:35 PM, Ham Priday <[email protected]> wrote:
> Sporting or not, I am earnestly looking for AGREEMENT. Ok, fair enough. Thanks for clarifying. Agreement upon what? Agreement about what you know? Or are you seeking agreement with objective truth? The first "agreement game" is pretty static and didactic, the second is more is open and questioning and yet fraught, on this forum anyway, with philosophical pitfalls. How you present yourself in my experience suggests to me that your idea of agreement falls into the category of persuasion. But that's just my opinion and I'll let you answer if you wish. Although some of your teachings on the innate subjectivity of value seems to confirm that you don't even believe in truth outside yourself. But again, that's just how you present. >> > This is a philosophy forum, not an "art form". Well then, can you please philosophically explain to me the difference? And I'm assuming you did read Zen and ART of Motorcycle Maintenance and thus possess the intellectual idea that the divorce of art from science has been an error; which implies the idea that the divorce of art and philosophy is an even bigger mistake. > I adapt my presentation (verbally) as best I can to the correspondent's > vernacular and worldview. The overall concept remains unchanged. > Hmmm...."unchanged" gives me pause. I wonder if that is actually possible. Especially when one is dealing with sophisticated metaphysical concepts which hardly translate well across worldview vernacular boundaries. It's sure not an exact science; in fact, if its possible at all I bet its more of an "art" than a science. > >>> Yes, value is the realization of that which is beyond (i.e., other to) > the self. However, I prefer "self/other dichotomy" to Pirsig's "SOM" whose > meaning is ambiguous to folks here. "More of the same"? I offer more than > the MoQ, which is not the same. My philosophy is based on an uncreated > Source. Quality and Value are perceived attributes of beingness whose > existence depends on the subject, hence do not quality as the primary > Source. Uncreated source doesn't sound all that different to me than Quality with a Cap Q. I mean, if everything is derived from Value as posited by Pirsig, then I don't see the actual distinction. Quality and Value are not perceived attributes of beingness... Beingness is a perceived attribute generated by Quality. Quality and Value's existence does not depend upon a subject... A subject's existence is dependent upon Value and Quality. That's how I read Pirsig and that's how I understand the MoQ. And it seems so simple and obvious to me, that I figure a guy like you who is so obviously intelligent, erudite and a deep thinker, either is "playing games" or has an important point to convey that lots of other intelligent, erudite deep thinkers have been unable or unwilling to grasp all these years. > >>> John prev] > > > Wrong. AND blatantly anthropocentric. Even my dog can choose >> to go left or right. Even my dog knows when he's doing wrong. >> > > > Do you consider this choice a moral or esthetic value? Is the dog's > behavior a valuistic decision at all, or only an instinctual response? What do you mean by instinct, that there is some coded message in a dog's dna that says on July 5, 2009 the organism must make a left turn? I'd say rather the dog makes a simple value judgement about its own perceived quality of life in relation to its environment in the moment. Same as you and me. Fukuoka says what we mean by "instinct" is "we don't know". Ham] And, yes, Essentalism is an anthropocentric philosophy. I'm surprised you didn't know that. John] And I'm anti-anthropocentrism, I'm equally surprised you didn't know that. > > But the values that drive man's behavior are not "universal" but >>> relative to his sensibility and the situation he confronts. Finally, >>> all values are derived from Essence, >>> >> > Or God. Or Quality. Or Tao. Or the big turtle which holds the worlds >> on its back. whatever . They're all postulated mythos blowin' in the >> wind >> and the only question that matters to me is "which one is best"? Which >> pertains to the quality of one's society, eh? The society that picks the >> best mythos wins. Yay. >> > > Is this how you play your game, John, by ridiculing your opponent? If so, > it's not worth my time and effort. I get enough ridicule and contempt from > Arlo and Krimel. > Maybe you are perceiving something that isn't really there. I know on my part, I had no idea of either ridicule nor contempt when I wrote what I wrote. I was expressing the idea that you don't get your AGREEMENT by just browbeating your admittedly intellectual inferiors (me) with propositions without good argumentative support. All values are derived from (fill_in_the_blank)... I mean, if you want to overthrow Pirsig, then you need to write a book or two that are better than his. Till then ... > > Go play your game in somebody else's yard. > Aw shucks. Don't be like that uncle Hammy. Idealistically, John > 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/ > - ------------ There are differing interpretations of Reality, some are just better than others, that's all. ------------ 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/
