Ho, Ham, I too have been distracted by events of late. My mom broke her leg horseback riding in Wyoming (stay off the horses grandma!) and I've been staying with her and caretaking a bit while she's bedridden. Since I'm pretty much underemployed at the moment, it's a natural fit. Since my wife moved into her mobile home on her property in town, it means I get to sleep with my wife as well. Adequate wages for a non-working man!
On Sun, Oct 3, 2010 at 1:07 PM, Ham Priday <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi John -- > > I had intended to respond to your post last night, but the hour was late, > which caused me to exhibit my attention deficit and send a correction to you > instead of that other apostle. (Funny, you both look the same to me!) Yes, it's funny indeed, who we resemble after a time. You'd be surprised, no doubt, if I told you who you remind me of! Focusing upon the key points of our dialogue: > [John]: > > And here he went just as astray as assuming the things >> and events of a given reality. How can there be a knower >> if there is nothing to know? >> > > Ham: > The essent of Selfness presupposes self-awareness. Although that's a > tautological statement, its truth seems to have gotten lost in the > insistence by some that "knowing" and "things" are synonomous. John: Hold your horses there Ham; surely no serious thinker could be foolish enough to equate "co-dependent arising" with "synonomous", Ham. I'd claim the exact opposite in fact! If They were truly synonomous with each other, they'd be synonomous with "nothing". For it is this fundamental differentiation by which meaning arises. That's what I'd argue with your "some". Ham: > Consciousness is the preferred term, for it defines the "capacity for > knowing" as opposed to the objects consciously experienced. > > John: And here is the key then, this "capacity for knowing". "Capacity" implies something else. Something to know, as part of it's capacity. John prev.: His (Royce) >> argument from the certainty of the existence of error is [the >> same as] Pirsig's conclusion about the existence of Quality. >> > Ham: > > But that Value (what I call "affinity") can only be realized dihotomously > -- that is, by a sensible agent whose awareness is separated or estranged > from the essential source. In other words, there is no value until it is > realized. That's where you and RMP are epistemologcally wrong. I'll repeat > myself again: Unrealized Value is an oxymoron. > > John: Well... I can't argue with you there. Unrealized Value IS an oxymoron. Which is why I lean toward explanations that involve co-dependendency and mutual arising and triadic signs. The only disagreement I can offer on your assesment, is that according to my understanding, Pirsig is using a rhetorical ploy to seduce those who have fallen into the epistemological problem you outline and in order to do so, he has to "go there" to an extent. But I believe the full body of his work and thought, taken as a whole, transcends mere epistemology. In fact, I'd say the flat-out refusal to define Quality does exactly that. Ham: Philosophers are always in trouble because, like Wall Street bankers, > they're speculators. But how else can we develop a thesis that purports to > explain reality? We can't get it from the laws of Science. > > John: :-) I like that. However, unlike Wall Street Bankers, Philosophers are usually poor and thus ignored as irrelevant by society. But then, at least their not tempted to jump off tall buildings when their ideas are proven bankrupt by experience, and get to live to a ripe old age eating peaches and calmly observing and commenting upon the destruction all around. John Prev: > > But surely you must see and admit that (these) words and >> symbols would never be realized by a cognizant subject, >> except they had first been created and transmitted by a >> vibrant cultural process. I don't see how you can miss >> this vital point, except through willful refusal. >> > > Ham: > I'm all for a "vibrant" culture, John, but the concept must come first. > Concepts originate from the introspection, intuitiion, and intellection of > individuals. The words and symbols required for transmitting concepts to > others come later, and of course they are borrowed from one's particular > culture. John: Aha, who is falling into epistemological traps now Ham? Point to one concept, any concept that could possibly arise independently of any social context. Can't be done, I say. A thesis with no empirical support falters on shaky legs of opinion only. Individuals are social creations. You have to have a group, in order to stand outside of it. Believe me, I know! I've got the empirical evidence to prove it. Thanks Ham, Your biggest fan, (girthwise anyway) John 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/md/archives.html
