Greetings John --
Well Ham,
your words thrill me and I agree with every word. You put it most
excellently as well. I just can't understand how anybody would
choose to not understand such plain and well-written rhetoric.
Thanks for the kind words. I had ro reread that post (to Marsha) to see
what "thrilled" you about it. But what was especially gratifying to me is
that "you agree with every word." That's a rarity in the history of my
dialogues here -- including our exchanges, John.
I know you don't agree with my cosmology. You don't accept my
epistemology that Value (Quality) doesn't exist in the absence of awareness.
And, in the MoQ tradition, you believe the social level begets selfness,
rather than the other way around.
So I went back to earlier statements of yours, hoping to learn the crux
of our disagreement. Instead, I came across this curious analysis
(character study?) of Ham you provided for David Thomas in February
of 2010:
I don't think Ham gets pissed. He's all cold, calculating and analytical
all the time. He's not a whole man, ya know? But the half man he is,
seems so formidible that I don't think I could even go there, it's like a
baby
wrestling an alligator, but the lopsidedness necessary for all that
intellectual
focus is it leaves the person as ignorant and helpless as a baby from the
other side of being - the dynamic romantic side that looks ridiculous to
the isolated intellect.
And what does an anthropocentric cosmology portend? Intelligence locked
in self-imposed prison, locked away from the roots of life and being. The
ostentatious and self-creative self. It's not exactly child abuse as we
normally
call it, its rather the intellect's suppression and abuse of the child
within.
That is Ham's suffering. You nailed it, Dr. Dave. DQ is fun!
As the unwary subject of this analysis, perhaps you could explain why I come
across to you as a "cold, calculating half man" who is "locked away" from
"the
dynamic romantic side". Just what part of a human persona am I missing, in
your opinion? Be as candid as necessary, John; I won't get "pissed".
Knowing
what others think of me will enable me to work on deficiencies that may have
made my arguments less palatable in these circles.
Always appreciate your insights, John -- even when they "hurt".
Best regards,
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
