Hi Adrie --
[Spelling corrected]:
Well Ham, there is no perfect definition about the term 'sophist',
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
thoughts, you seem to have a talent for distorting moral reality
and scientific reality. You blend rhetorical 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.
It's funny . . . I thought YOU guys were the "sophists"! But thanks for
boosting my status from lay philosopher to sophist.
All experience is subject to the law of contradiction. The only
"non-contradiction" I am aware of applies to a realm beyond existence where
Reality is Absolute Oneness and otherness is negated appearances. The
theory of the ‘Not-Other’ was developed by the Neo-Platonic philosopher
Nicholas de Cusa in the 15th century who postulated an “ineffable entity” to
which neither otherness nor multiplicity is opposed. (I have leaned heavily
on his wisdom in my thesis.)
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 rephrase 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 summarizing
effect out of the picture.....
in cause indifferent towards moral/immoral, but in summarizing effect
not indifferent towards moral reality because as a real sophist 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 dinos disappeared.
By "human presence", I assume you mean the individual self (as opposed to
the collective society). This, of course, is the heart of Essentialism
which I deal with in considerable detail when not defining the fundamental
ontology. You asked for my views on the amoral universe, remember?
But these are only some remarks
Imho! Moral by effect.
What does "moral by effect" mean? And how can something be moral if it is
not realized and judged by the sensible individual?
I'm disappointed that you failed to see the logic of my argument against
a moral universe. The primary tenet of Essentialism is that the individual
is an autonomous existent who is granted the freedom to pursue his own
values. If (considered as part of the universe) man is "guided" or
propelled to morality by some external force, he is not a free agent. Which
position best describes your stand on this issue?
Thanks, Adrie,
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
