=
On Sun. April 14, 2013 at 8:30 AM, X-Acto wrote:
> Keeping in mind that the individual originates from The "common good" > as
> well.
> This is the tangle you face in your explanation. One may not "be"
> without the other out of necessity.
Ham:
Fundamentally, everything originates from a source Pirsig calls Quality and
I call Essence. So, from a metaphysical perspective, the individual does
not arise from the "common good" (collective morality) but from the absolute
source that human beings sense as Value. I do not see this as a "tangle" so
much as removing the entrapment of subject/object relativity to reach a
basic understanding of Reality.
Ron:
It indeed is a tangle to be sure, and it lacks explanitory power, but aside
from that
the two points of view differ on some fairly fundemental levels so much so that
they are rather difficult to reconcile. Which brings us to the next comment.
Ham explains:
In every meaningful discussion some negativity must arise. In this case,
the "negative discord" stems from failure to acknowledge the foundation of
physical (i.e., experiential) reality based on a Value concept. This is as
symptomatic of Pirsig's MOQ as it is of my essentialist ontology.
As for my motivation in presenting this concept ("particular tastes"?) here,
the reason is simple enough. There is an obvious parallel between these two
valuistic philosophies which deserves to be explored for the benefit of
both. What stands in the way is inflexibility on the part of the debaters.
Nothing is gained by a discussion like this unless or until the proponents
are willing to seriously consider each other's premises.
Toward that end, I merely ask that you reconcile the negatives sufficiently
to affirm the positives. You may be surprised by how much can be gained
through such an approach.
Ron:
I think we already found that there was really very little gained, because
no one is willing to seriously consider each others premises and that is due
to those fundemental differences in the points of view. They have been
explored and they mostly end in a politically charged flame war.
You play the part of the persecuted and attempt to pied piper the newbies,
Which tends to expose all the closet reactionaries in our midst which is useful,
but lets just save ourselves alot of time and why dont you just go ahead and
plug
Essentialism, your website and your book and a short essay as to why
Essentialism
is better than MoQ and just let folks follow you if they will and lets just be
done with it.
If there was some bit of substance to your criticism there might be a
philosophical discussion
but there isn't, its just an advertisement. A "hook" as they say in the biz.
..good luck sellin it, it's a rough market.
..
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
