On 6/30/11 9:03 PM, "Ham Priday" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Hi Mark --
>
> On 6/29/11 9:35 PM, "Ham Priday" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Everything in existence is individuated from every other. That includes
>> human beings. If you are persuaded that the self-evident fact of human
>> individuality is a "crapshoot", it's your problem, not mine.
>
> On 6/30/11 2:07 PM, "Joseph Maurer" <[email protected]> responded:
>> There are two meanings to the word "One". There is a quantity (logical),
>> intellectual meaning, indicating that something follows 1 like 2. There is
>> a
>> quality (evolutionary) meaning that existence is 1 and is divided into
>> levels, evolution.
>>
>> Mathematics and Metaphysics. Metaphysical 1 is not followed by 2, but
>> describes individuality in levels in existence, evolution. Quantitative 1
>> is an intellectual crapshoot, how many?
>>
>> Or maybe not!
>
> On 6/30/11 7:40 PM, Mark "118" <[email protected]> commented:
>> Hi Joe,
>> Then why even use the term 1?
>
> Joe is a numbers man who thinks that numerical equations define Truth.
> Since metaphysics is expressed in words and concepts, it has no validity for
> him. He doesn't seem to understand that individuality is not a numbered
> level or quantitative value but the systematic form of existence.
>
> But Joe is not alone in refusing to acknowledge the individual agent, Mark.
> I'm constantly amazed at the chicanery and deception employed here to evade
> the subjective self which is the very agent of will. Whether it's the claim
> that the subjective 'I' is a creation of the "social level", or the notion
> that selfness is a set of "interrelated patterns", the general consensus
> seems to be that Pirsig's thesis would fall apart if the free agent were
> anything but an illusion. Only indefinable DQ is allowed the distinction of
> free agency. Or, as Marsha says, "to the extent that we follow static
> quality, there is no choice. By following Dynamic Quality, we are free."
>
> We can only try, Mark.
Hi Ham,
This is your metaphysics at its worst. You deny evolution, and give lip
service to "individuality" as the systematic form of existence. "one"
and "systematic" are not equivalent in evolution or even common parlance,
yet you use the 1 of mathematics as the metaphysical description of reality.
You allow no other initial concepts and I can't argue or talk to you since
only you exist. It must be lonely Ham to bear such weight as the only
metaphysical arbiter of reality.
Joe
>
> Thanks, as always, for your support,
> --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
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
