Hello Ham,
Ron prev:
> 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?
Ham:
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.
Ron:
Then why is it identical to neoplatonism?
Ham:
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.
Ron:
It is, but your condescending attitude turns me off. It seems like it is you
who is
unwilling to understand, you cling to your strawmen like some sort of security
blanket
with each discussion as if you would'nt know what to say without them.
Ron prev:
> 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.
Ham:
Aristotle condemned ontological assumptions? What is your justification for
that assertion?
Ron:
Ever read metaphysics?
Ham:
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?
Ron:
He forwarded a theory of meaning, the term "metaphysics" did not exist when he
wrote it.
He did not study the causes and principles of being, he studied what we mean by
those
terms. He condemns the Pythagoreans for doing such a thing as you state.
Ham:
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.
Ron:
Sans the ontological assumptions ..which your whole thesis seems to revolve
around
and what you harp on as being necessary to address.
Ron prev:
> 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?
Ham:
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".
Ron:
Dish it out but can't take it I see. Almost all your posts bash Pirsig and
belittle
the participants of the MD but as soon as you get some of your own medicine
it's cry baby cry....c'mon Ham...I raise legitimate opposition to your
criticism,
I'd say most here on the MD do in fact get it, yet you would only see those
that continually struggle as being the status quo, another straw man...
You are not out of line, not even alittle...that would attributing some
backbone to you. If you come off spoilng for a fight near constantly,
don't be surprised when you get one, is all dear Ham.
In fact I've enjoyed our exchange and am rather disapointed you did'nt
come back with something more formidable to put me in my place.
-sincerely
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/
