Greetings, Ham --

Ron:
> Right.  How the term Nihilist is usually used is in a perjorative manner,
> which is a value in itself, thus one may claim they do not value theism,
> spiritualism or value agnosticism without denying it has value for
> others and as such they are indeed NOT denying their own beliefs.
> 
> Theism in the broadest sense is the belief in at least one deity.
> a deity is in the broadest sense, a supernatural entity seperate
> and distinct from the believer and are typically thought of
> anthropomorphicly. you make some fairly broad generalizations
> with some pretty particular goals in mind.
> 
> Answer this.  Is an understanding about how human beings derive
> meaning from experience a belief? or is it an understanding? The
> concept of belief presumes a subject (the believer) and an object
> of belief (the proposition). A position most Pirsigians do not
> subscribe to.

Ham:
Understanding is the intellectual apprehension of an idea or concept as 
meaningful, which is not necessarily a "belief".  However, understanding is 
necessary in order to make the idea credible to us so that we can believe it.  
I don't believe that accepting a proposition or doctrine "on faith" qualifies 
as a "belief" (which excludes a variety of religious propositions).

In an epistemological sense, a belief is not an "object" but an aspect or 
perspective of the subject's conscious awareness.  The proposition or premise 
on which the belief is based is generally derived from (objective) experience, 
although it can also be intuitive.  To suggest that Pirsigians' can't have 
beliefs because they reject subjects and objects is simplistic. The denial of 
subjects and objects is itself a belief, but one which contradicts human 
experience in deference to an adopted philosophy.  This is the kind of belief 
that Sartre called "bad faith", meaning an idea or principle accepted on the 
authority of another.

Ron:
Beautiful rhetorical slight of hand, switching up context like that, from your 
usual ontological
stance to an epistomological one then ridiculing it as "bad faith" and belief. 
Again, is
epistemology a belief or a field of inquirey? to understand the MoQ Ham, 
understand
that it is epistemology, plain and simple, that does not take 
onological assumptions into
consideration. While your perspective is an ontological arguement and based in
ontological assumptions that even Aristotle condemned as short sighted.

Ron:
> You speak of value as an entity separate and distinct
> from the valuer. Each of us is the uncreated source,
> so in essence each of our own human experiences is
> our own god.

Ham:
You've got this totally wrong.  It is Mr. Pirsig, not Ham, who posits Value 
(Quality) as a separate "entity".  I define it as man's affinity or desire for 
what he lacks in essence.  For me there is but one "uncreated source" and we 
are its created agents.  We are all born with an innate sensibility to Value 
from which we construct our being-in-the-world.

Ron:
Then it is you, Ham who does not understand what Robert Pirsig is saying, given 
you
do not understand what he is saying, it goes without saying that you criticisms 
are
misguided. Value may be understood as desire, but, desire is a vague, general 
abstraction. You know what you desire, and appearently you feel you lack 
something.
What I fail to understand is how you can make criticisms on based on your own 
values and
assert them as universal principles. Is'nt this "bad faith" by your own hand?

[Ham, previously]:
> At least that is my understanding of what drives mankind
> in his quest for philosophical meaning.

[Ron]:
> And that is my understanding as to why it keeps from
> being understood.

Ham:
But if I don't explain my understanding of reality, how can it be understood?
[Perhaps you would volunteer to explain it to me ;-].

Ron:
But you seem not to understand that it is your understanding of reality
and constantly gripe and moan that Pirsigs ideas do not correspond with your own
based on the idea that your values are universal principles and his are not, his
are just one mans opinion...I mean what contradictory rubbish are you trying
to push?




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/



      
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/

Reply via email to