greetings, Ham, You said in response to my appreciation of your "nihilism is for nincompoops!" quip:
> > Thanks, John, and you're most welcome. Now if only I could persuade you > that your worldview is nihilistic, we might be getting somewhere. > John: That sounds like an impossible task, Ham. My worldview is miles away from nihilism. John prev: >> You seem to be pretty stuck in your own terms. Hmmm... >> wonder if that's any sort of problem? >> > > If "stuck in my own terms" means that I am expressing my convictions as > best I can, you are right. > The way I see it, this is a problem for you, not me. > > John: Exactly! Whereas you view communication as explicating your own views, using your own terms, I see it as an attempt to meet the other in the middle somewhere. Building a bridge to understanding rather than a castle in the air. Ham: > Well, then I suppose I'm looking to you folks for the perspective you say I > need -- not to "understand my reality" (for I already do), but to understand > the common objections raised against it. There would be no point in > argument and persuasion if I had no reality of my own to impart to others. > Unfortunately, the "others" tend to be intractably biased in a Pirsigian > direction, and I am viewed as a renegade, which is why such dialogue doesn't > work here. This needn't be "fundamentally problematic", however; and it > isn't when people are open to alternative views. I see you as potentially > such a person, John, along with Mark and Joe. > > John: I think an openness to alternative views needs be a two-way street, Ham. I don't think you can just force your views upon others, ever. Even with great social weight such as celebrity or popularity. Nor with pure logic and reason. Persuasion to a view takes more than all these factors, it requires a beguiling to take place. Some sort of desire has to be created. "Any self persuaded against her will, is yet to be persuaded still." I think what we long for, and stated earlier as: > > But sometimes you can catch glimpses of a transcendant harmony >> coming from different terms and "realities". Since there is that which is >> common to the other, we assume this as some sort of "super-reality" >> or truer picture, and I believe that is the best analogy for DQ as I can >> come up with right now. >> > > You say you agree!: > Yes, it's the common chord I guess we're all striving for. Finding such > harmony of thought is a rarity on the MD, but I do spot it occasionally and > it does broaden my perspective. John: Yes and when your perspective is broadened, so too is your "you". The subjective lens you use to view reality is changed Ham: > I think we should exercise caution where such consensus is found, however, > lest we be deceived by our own exhubrance as to the Truth it reveals. > John: I think we should just go with our exhuberant truth-of-the-moment, keeping in mind that there is always more of the truth to be heard and comprehended. > > [Ham, responding to Marsha]: > > But what does it gain us intellectually to simply call existence a >> "convention"? >> > > [John]: > > It frees us to realize we are making a choice. There is not any "truth" >> that is thrust upon us and forced down our throats, because in the end >> they >> are all conventions, and thus, all choices. Intellectually, that is very, >> very freeing because it opens up the boundaries to thought and inquiry >> infinitely. >> > > Ham: > Here I disagree. No one is--or should be--thrusting a truth or principle > down our throat. But "conventionality" is even more sinister. For it > implies that nothing is real or true, that we live in a fantasy world of our > own making. This is the nihilistic "cloud of unreality" that I alluded to > before, and it hangs over the MoQ like flies over a cadaver. > > John: Here is where you call me nihilistic, and I call you ridiculous. Because nothing could be furthur from the truth than you when you equate pluralism with nothingness. Grasping one's conventions lightly, as relatively true in the moment, does not obviate some absolute truth "out there". It's just a way of realizing that what we play is a game, and assuring us that the game is serious and real. How can that be nihilistic? As I pointed out before: > > Nihilism is absurd. Undoubtedly. But there is a big difference between >> nothing and infinity Ham. A pluralisim of conventions is the opposite of >> no >> convention. > > Ham: > "Infinity" is a numerical symbol of absolute magnitude, and "nothing" is > its antithesis. So, of course, all difference lies between them. These are > conventions (euphemisms) by which we humans acknowledge the ineffable or > indefinable aspects of our reality. But they are not Reality itself; in > fact, neither Infinity nor Nothingness exists. > John: Now who is sounding nihilistic! If you think neither infinity or Nothingness exists, then how can you postulate anything in between??!!! There could be no existence, according to your argument, and that sounds about as nihilistic as it gets. You should say, "infinity and nothingness exist only as conceptualizations." But thats a far cry from non-existence. For one thing, their existence as concepts point to some real aspect which is being pointed to. In Piercean terms, because they exist as signs, they indicate that which is signified. Don't be nihilistic, Ham. Nihilism is for nincompoops and you obviously aren't one of those. All the signs point to the very opposite in fact. Ham: The notion that Quality alone is real is Pirsig's "convention". And whether > we call it Virtue, Goodness, or Arête, it's as much of a myth as anything > concocted by the supernaturalists. Value is the affinity of the free agent > for its Source. Without a fundamental source there can be no sensible > agent, let alone the realization of Value. > John: Your "free agent" is certainly as much a myth as Pirsig's convention (which is harmonious with Pierce's and Royce's as well, btw) And likewise, your "source". These things (source and free agents) are conceptualizations which you find useful and I don't see how you can ascribe reality to such ideas while denigrating Goodness as a mere "convention". This is just the repetition of the materialists - its all in your head. Well, I agree. It is all in my head. Everything thing is. duh. Ham: > This is the premise of Essentialism, John. And, as much as I'd like to > accommodate it to Qualityism, the fact that Quality is not a primary source > makes this a logical impossibility. That's the dilemma I confront in this > forum. The "problem" I have with the MoQ is indeed "fundamental"; it is the > fundament that Quality lacks. > > John: Your "primary source", is also just a quality idea, Ham. But don't feel bad, most everything is. Thanks for your time, 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
