Ham Priday stated to Marsha V April 13th 2013:
> > Marsha > > I appreciate your expression of solicitude, Marsha. Actually, yesterday’s > message got away from me as I tried to save it to my drafts file. Since my > wife is doing most of the e-mail messaging these days, I’ve not kept up with > the “technology”. But your response to the quotes I sent provides a platform > on which to make some points that came to mind when I reviewed them. Ant McWatt comments: Good to hear from you too Ham. (Yes, like most people on this Board I don't have much time or interest in Essentialism but you deserve credit for actually working out a moral system for yourself. A few more billion people on this planet could do with trying to do the same). Ham Priday continued: > Let me first address Dan’s argument: “We do not experience Dynamic > Quality. 'It' IS experience.” > > Obviously, Mr. Pirsig Ant McWatt comments: Well, old Bob received an honorary doctorate from Montana State University last December so maybe he isn't a "Mr" any more. Does that make him "officially" a doctor? I don't know. Maybe some philosophologist or university bureaucrat can enlighten us here. Ham Priday continued: > Obviously, Mr. Pirsig had a philosophical reason to divide Quality into two > forms or modes. Ant McWatt comments: Is it so "obvious" Ham? For instance the romantic/classic split that Pirsig used in ZMM is derived from Northrop's concepts by intuition and concepts by postulation. As Professor Henry "I don't post here" Gurr suspects in his Northrop article at: http://ww2.usca.edu/ResearchProjects/ProfessorGurr/Main/HomePage (N.B. Henry's website used to be the much more memorable "ZMMQuality.org" but some sad retard nicked the domain name a few years ago..) many of the references of ZMM are secondary ones from Northrop's 1946 text "The Meeting of East & West". Ham Priday continued: The problem, as I’ve previously stated, is that the descriptors “dynamic” and “static” are not consistent with what we experience or intuit about reality. Ant McWatt comments: "Descriptor" strikes me as rather a pretenious word (I feel like I'm being sold some suspect banking product by one of these casino bankers - "Thanks buddy - I'll call you; don't call me"). Anyway, Ham I think you were thinking of the word "term". A far more honest, succinct word that doesn't sound like it's trying to rip you off with some type of sub-prime mortgage. Moreover, it's always Dynamic with a capital "D" as it's meant to be a name of something rather than an adjective... Ham Priday continued: The reality of experience is a “dynamic process” in which subjects and objects come into existence... Ant McWatt comments: Christ, I don't think I've experienced a "subject" or an "object" since the late 20th century. Sometimes reading posts like yours is like coming across a story that I composed when I was seven; a quaint if rather naive way at looking at things. For instance, subjects and objects leave no room for society. I'm afraid - unlike the recently departed Wicked Witch of the West(minster) - that I think it is a high quality idea to assume that there is a society that intellectual patterns are embedded in; that there are social rules/norms to be followed and consequences to be had if there are not followed e.g it's bit like driving through red lights in New York or London. It will be only a matter of a few minutes before - if you're lucky, that the police and/or ambulance people pick you up - you discover that this specific social convention is worth (i..e has value) in following. In other words, you need to address such basics first before moving on to such things as "Ultimate Reality". Best wishes, Ant . 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
