Well Ham, thers is no perfect defenition about the term 'sofist', but i think you deserve the title. I do not mistake you for a fool, or a parrot, clearly you have a sharp mind when you are using common parlance. If you deviate to the formal reasoning of most philosophical toughts, you seem to have a talent for distorting moral reality and scientifical reality.You blend rhetoric arguments with logic and the law of contradiction to steer towards pirsig's contradictions, as where you should have , as a true philosopher, been requestioning the true validity of the law of non-contradiction in the first place.
sometimes its really scary/sofistic to read. Now , imho. To ride the amoral universe up against Pirsigs moral universe is to await the collision and see what happens and to rename the shards. Allow me to refrase one or two sentences to make my point clear. snip Ham First of all, it is empirically evident that earthquakes, tornados, tsunamis, famine, disease, and genetic deformities occur periodically and cause much suffering on this planet. This is neither moral nor immoral; it is simply indicative of the range of values to which we 'earth creatures' are exposed. Neither moral nor immoral as cause, and avoiding the summarising effect out of the picture..... in cause indifferent towards moral/immoral, but in summarizing effect not indifferent towards moral reality because as a real sofist you "forgot" to mention the human presence in your lining up. and to say it is only historically evident that....well it was also not very empirically nor historically evident that the dino's dissapeared. But these are only some remarks Imho! Moral by effect. 2013/4/16 Hamilton Priday <[email protected]> > Greetings, Adrie -- > > > On Mon, April 15, 2013 5:51 PM, Adrie Kintziger wrote: > > (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 protagonists are willing to >> >> seriously consider each other's premises. >> >> (Adrie's response)... >> 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. >> > > There is no chapter with that specific title, Adrie, but I'm happy to > provide a brief explanation as to why the universe is amoral. ... > > First of all, it is empirically evident that earthquakes, tornados, > tsunamis, famine, disease, and genetic deformities occur periodically and > cause much suffering on this planet. This is neither moral nor immoral; it > is simply indicative of the range of values to which we 'earth creatures' > are exposed. > > Secondly, the notion that Morality exists independently of man's > sensibility and guides the universe to "betterness" makes no sense from a > metaphysical viewpoint. If Value (Quality) is an attribute of an uncreated > Source that transcends space/time, as I've suggested, there is no need for > that Source, or the universe it designs, to "evolve toward betterness". > Indeed, Essence is already immutable in its absolute perfection! > > Finally, goodness and evil are moral polarities of the law of > contradiction which applies to all existential process. If we didn't > experience evil, we wouldn't recognize goodness. If we didn't feel pain or > sorrow, we would be oblivious of pleasure or joy. If we were not awed by > the magnificent, we would be unaware of the trite. In other words, Value > would be unrealizable, and morality inconceivable. > > But we DO realize Value; it is the very purpose of our existence as > sensible agents. In fact, it is my theory that man, as a sensible being, > affords Essence the means by which the Value of Essence may be realized > autonomously and without bias. > > If this simple argument causes you to wet your pants, maybe it's the > excitement of gaining some insight that never occurred to you before. > Incidentally, while I've expressed some differences with Pirsig's thesis, I > doubt that my criticisms have ever risen to the level of "shredding his > work to pieces". > > Anyway, I'll refrain from boring this august group with quotations from my > book. at least until the senior members give me permission to do so. > > Essentially speaking, > Ham > > > > > Moq_Discuss mailing list > Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. > http://lists.moqtalk.org/**listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-**moqtalk.org<http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org> > Archives: > http://lists.moqtalk.org/**pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.**org/<http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/> > http://moq.org/md/archives.**html <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
