On 5/23/11 12:13 PM, "118" <[email protected]> wrote:
<snip>
> [Mark]
> With this last statement you return to the subject matter of the
> thread as presented by Ham. Ham speaks clearly of attraction, which I
> fully support. One interpretation of Love could be such attraction.
> This would agree with Essentialism, and in fact I agree with you. Ham
> has refined this by presenting "love for", which makes more sense in
> this forum. As such the experience of love is Ham's attraction. To
> complete the analogy, Ham rightfully envisions an object of love which
> is located on the other side. While we disagree on how this is
> presented, I agree with him whole-heartedly (pun intended).
>
> I also agree with your inclusion of emotions in the DQ set and
> intellect in the SQ set. I am not sure if you agree with me who
> agrees with you.
<snip>
Hi Mark,
I disagree with Ham stating that the format for metaphysics is essentialism.
I prefer Pirsig's DQ/SQ format which gives the nod to evolution. For me it
is hard to envision DQ/SQ in an essentialist format. I find it more
compelling to see DQ/SQ in an existential format, evolution, levels in
existence.
Joe
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
