I did not say this. David Harding said it. Any concerns should be addressed to him.
On Mar 12, 2013 9:19 AM, "X" <[email protected]> wrote: > > (Dan had said to Dave H.) > That which is not experienced does not exist, SQ is not directly experienced therefore it does not ultimately exist. > > [Ron] > That may not be the precise wording however the meaning implied remains that SQ does not > "ultimately" exist. Notice the rhetorical escape hatch placed on the term "ultimate" just in case > it comes to notice that joining the two ideas "that which has no value does not exist" changes the entire statement to then imply that static quality lacks value which then > begins to sound a bit contradictory in meaning and loses power in explanation on account > that it is not consistant. > But pull the rip chord and that parachute fails well I did use the term "ultimately" SQ is not > "ultimately" real. > But that is contrary to what was implied by the opening statement, that "that which is not > experienced does not exist" then jump to the conclusion that SQ does not exist by virtue > that SQ is not directly experienced however it neglects the base opening original use of the > term "value" that primary explanitory factor of all philosophy {love of wisdom} the core > meaning of all explanation (reality is composed of value every last bit.) The logical counter > is that value is experience. > Now this should cause us to re-examine our understanding of both terms value and > experience.And here is the jump, we understand value, on a primary level therefore it > should give aim at our conception of the term "experience" as the subject matter of > discussion. > Dispensing with the condescending garbage of course, unless thats your aim. > > > .If its all a morality, its all aimed at betterness. experience is a moral act, rightly speaking > The counter arguement is that DQ is best concieved by what its not. But that is talking from > the persuasion technique used for the unintitiated to philosophy. The initiated (most of us) > are familier with the traditional core concepts rendering this counter moot in most > discussion. Therefore what it is not is amoral and meaningless. > 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
