Greetings, Ant -- Uh-oh . . . now I know I'm in trouble!
On Sat 4/13 at 8:08 PM, Ant McWatt wrote:
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).
Essentialism is a philosophy that offers a working ontology based on an original metaphysical thesis. It includes an epistemology, but doesn't pretend to be a "moral system" for me or anyone else. Morality is a value orientation worked out through the individual's life experience.
Ham, previously:
Let me first address Dan’s argument: “We do not experience Dynamic Quality. 'It' IS experience.” Obviously, Mr. Pirsig ...
Ant McWatt interjects:
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.
Well, I don't know either, Ant. As I believe you've officially earned your Ph.D., should I now address you as Dr. McWatt? Anyway, congratulations to Dr. Bob.
...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".
I don't follow your reasoning here, but as the late Jimmy Durante used to say, "Everybody wants t'get into da act!"
Ham continues:
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...
Pretentious? I chose the word "descriptor" specifically to avoid adjective. Besides, "dynamic" means "active, changing, progressive" whether it is capitalized or not. Such verbal chicanery will not change the implicit meaning of a word You are being unnecessarily critical, Ant. The nominative word in the term Dynamic Quality is "Quality". To redefine it as "the name of something" is to corrupt the language by which ideas are communicated.
Ham continues:
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.
Well, I couldn't help noting that your friend Prof. Gurr opens his blog with this quote: "Quality is the parent, the source of all subjects and objects." - Robert Pirsig. (Maybe that was before he got his honorary doctorate.)
Ant seizes the opportunity to inject his collectivist worldview:
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".
I am disgusted to see the leftists in Britain portray their late great PM in this obscene manner. Margaret Thatcher was a woman of principle who single-handedly put the UK back on its feet, saving it from a socialist fate. We could well use the insight and resolve of such a leader in the current U.S. administration.
As for the "basics" of reality, as you will see from my Value Page this week, perhaps the most fundamental is: The "common good" originates with the individual self. Or, as Ayn Rand put it, "No man can think for another." Social conventions such as morality "have value" only to the extent that this value is realized by individuals.
Ant, I'm sorry but not entirely surprised that my concept of reality doesn't square with yours. I defer to Horse and the other charter members here to decide whether the basic tenets of Essentialism are in conflict with the MoQ.
Nonetheless, I do appreciate your thoughtful response. Respectfully, 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
