Adrie
(Ham's proposal)....
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.
Well, this is a nice gesture.Noblesse oblige.
If you are so noble and honest to challenge the other debaters to give you
the benefit of the doubt, you should present at least one or two
chapters from your book here in the open , so we can shred it to pieces
like you do with Pirsigs work.
For my part , i'm interested in the chapter 'Amoral
universe',....cant'hardly wait to piss myself.
even without reading it, i can hear the angels singing 'bout the absolute
source
""The path of the righteous man is beset on all sides by the inequities of
the selfish and the tyranny of evil men. Blessed is he who, in the name of
charity and good will, shepherds the weak through the valley of the
darkness. For he is truly his brother's keeper and the finder of lost
children. And I will strike down upon thee with great vengeance and furious
anger those who attempt to poison and destroy my brothers. And you will
know that my name is the Lord when I lay my vengeance upon thee""
(tarantino's version ezekiel)
anyway , pulp fiction(pun intended)
Adrie
2013/4/15 X Acto <[email protected]>
>
>
> =
> 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
>
--
parser
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
