Hey, Ron --
What I fail to understand is how you can make criticisms based on your own values and assert them as universal principles. Isn't this "bad faith" by your own hand?
I am not asserting universal principles. I am articulating my personal beliefs about the essence of Reality and man's relation to it. These beliefs are not an adaptation of someone else's philosophy or "faith" but were intruitively derived over several decades and are based on logic insofar as they apply to physical existence. They have led me to develop a metaphysical hypothesis (cosmology) which I call Essentialism.
Since Value plays a central role in my ontology, it has this in common with the MoQ. This is what initially attracted me to Pirsig's writings, and why I decided to join the MD at his suggestion six years ago. I had hoped that my thesis would be of interest to this group as an alternate approach to human values.
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 inquiry? to understand the MoQ Ham, understand that it is epistemology, plain and simple, that does not take ontological assumptions into consideration. While your perspective is an ontological argument and based in ontological assumptions that even Aristotle condemned as short sighted.
Aristotle condemned ontological assumptions? What is your justification for that assertion? Aristotle was more empirical than his mentor Plato and approached metaphysics by studying the causes and principles of "being", rather than idealistic "forms" per se. Is that not precisely what ontology is?
Epistemology, on the other hand, is the study of how knowledge is acquired (i.e., the cognitive process), and has historically been only obliquely connected with philosophy and metaphysics. However, there has been a growing interest by philosophers in the value of knowledge as well as the values involved in epistemic appraisal. Inasmuch as the MoQ and Essentialism are both valuistic philosophies, the epistemology of each would seem to be relevant to these discussions.
But you seem not to understand that it is your understanding of reality and constantly gripe and moan that Pirsig's 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 man's opinion...I mean what contradictory rubbish are you trying to push?
We used to have such amiable and productive conversations on logic, Ron. I don't know what has prompted your recent rancor. The criticisms I've raised concerning the MoQ thesis are legitimate issues that need to be addressed, as they continue to surface in posts that reflect confusion on the part of the participants. I guess one man's alternative view is another man's "contradictory rubbish". If I am out of line in suggesting that other concepts be considered, send your complaint to Horse who, as you well know, can have me "removed".
Thanks and best wishes, 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/
