Hi Ham and all, For me the "subjective self" is a stone wall that falls on words.
Joe On 3/23/11 10:49 AM, "Ham Priday" <[email protected]> wrote: > > I don't know if your query was directed to me because you've found my my > writing obtuse. This criticism has been thrown at me more than once. > Although I try to articulate my concepts as clearly and cogently as > possible, I've noted a "conceptual gap" in my dialogue with the Pirsigians > which I can only attribute to their philosophical indoctrination. What it > comes down to is that they not only won't accept alternative views, they > won't even attempt to conceptualize them. When someone refuses to > acknowledge the "subjective self", for example, or that the realization of > Value requires a conscious agent, trying to explain my ontology is like > running into a stone wall. > > The MoQists, in particular, have a language of their own in which certain > terms have a specal meaning ('intension'?) 'Extend' that meaning at your > own risk, for it will surely cause resentment. But I suppose that's the > burden we all have to deal with when traveling in foreign territory. > > Nice to talk to you, Tuukka. (Whar's the derivation of that name, by the > way?) > > Essentially yours, > 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/md/archives.html
