On Tuesday, July 07, 2009 3:56 PM, John Carl wrote to Ham:
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.
My answer is the same as everyone else's here, you included. We all try to
persuade others that our concepts are plausible and sound. What would be
the point of participating in this forum if we weren't seeking to exchange
views and have our ideas considered?
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.
It's no secret that I don't believe Truth (in the absolute sense) is
accessible to man. The alternative is either to give up the search or to
combine intuitive insight and intellect to come up with a logical
hypothesis. That's what I have done with the Philosophy of Essence.
I previously said philosophy is not an art form
Well then, can you please philosophically explain to me the difference?
Art is an expression of emotion in a form other than words. Usually it is
created to please the senses by appealing to the esthetic values of the
observer. Art is an entertainment, not a form of communication. The aim of
art, whether in painting, music, or sculpture, is to arouse emotional
feelings. The aim of philosophy is to convey ideas about the meaning of
life and the origin of existence.
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've read both novels, as well as Pirsig's SODV paper, but I don't limit my
reading to one philosopher, nor do I consult Pirsig on a daily basis to see
what he has to say on an issue.
Also, I think the notion that Pirsig's message is that art has been divorced
from philosophy is simplistic. Quality (Value) is to be found in much that
is not art -- the order of the cosmos, people, romance, morality,
engineering, gustatory delights, poetry, intellectual ideas, etc..
[Ham]:
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.
Philosophy isn't science at all. If you're looking for verifiable facts
about the principles and dynamics of nature, this isn't the place.
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.
Says who? Apparently you prejudge any new concept by what "it sounds like".
I have no desire to imitate Pirsig. If you had read my thesis, you would
realize that every one of your assertions is false. Value is the perception
(sensible realization) of essential otherness. It cannot exist
independently of the self.
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 ...
I have written a book. Whether it's "better than his" or not is a
subjective judgment call.
John, I don't believe you're interested in alternate views. I think you
just want to play word games based on who can make the best argument. That
may curl your agates, but it doesn't help explain the MoQ or advance the
cause of philosophy.
Good luck at finding a willing player.
Regards,
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/
