On Wed, Jul 8, 2009 at 10:01 AM, Ham Priday <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> > 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? > So your job is to try and persuade others, and other's job is to consider your views. So what's the problem with my rejection of your views? Would you rather I just said, "you're absolutely correct Ham, in everything you say." whether I understood your point or not? > >> 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. > Well I'm content with a logical hypothesis, I don't need absolute truth in my hip pocket. > >> > 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. The aim of metaphysics is origins and meanings. Philosophy comprehends much more with its "love of wisdom". And you don't think poetry is art? You don't think theater is art? You don't think drama is art? You don't think art is a form of communication? I don't even know where to begin to open up the can of worms you present here. It makes me very suspicious of you in general. Ham] 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.. John] So you also think cookery is not an art... a form of pandering perhaps? I'm speechless as well. 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. > Ham] Says who? Apparently you prejudge any new concept by what "it sounds like". John] Well substitute "seems to me" for "sounds like" to be more accurate. After all, little is heard of these words on a screen. And it's my way of avoiding pre-judgement by taking into account possible translation difficulties rather than the arrogant assumption that I always know exactly what the other intended by their words. Ham] 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. John] I've read much of your website-thesis. I found much of interest and value and much of your criticism of society I completely agree with. But I don't buy your cosmology - it's too subjective, too man-centered and way too complicated in ways that seems unnecessary. The convolutions you go through just to avoid a shallow solipsism are beyond my ability to untangle. > > I mean, if you want to overthrow Pirsig, then you need to write a > book or two that are better than his. Till then ... Ham] I have written a book. Whether it's "better than his" or not is a subjective judgment call. John] Much in life is, Ham. Hoisted on yer own petard again. Ham] 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. John] Ham, the difference between "word games based on who can make the best argument" and "the cause of philosophy" is non-existent. When I first came here, you commented that you were barely tolerated on this forum. You know why? Because you sir, are little more than a low level subroutine put here to test the faithful. That's what you are. Who knows if you even have a pair of agates of your own. Ham] Good luck at finding a willing player. John] Good hunting on excluding your expendable processes. 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/
