Adrie (snip Ham) 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.) -------------------------------------------------------------------------
Neo-Platonic?every person born after Plato's departure is a neo-Platonic, in this context even Hitler was a neo-Platonic. But without pun intended however,Cusa was or tryed to be a theological mystic, and you seem to have the same stance. Difficult for me to fathom is as to why so many mercans like to live in a very weird selfconstructed magic thinkingworld to be taken as realism. what is the good of selfdeclared wisdom if it doesn't serve the wise........ (snip) The only "non-contradiction" I am aware of applies to a realm beyond existence where Reality is Absolute Oneness and otherness is negated appearances. comment Adrie. i do not really think you have any idea about the philosophical implications concerning the law of non-contradiction. Your sentence is not about contradiction, but about creating the scenery to make a theistic/creationist point of view,a mystical one. to come back on Moral/amoral 2.6.2 moral framework derived from evolution,etc Do you understand what the word 'tendency 'means Ham? and the effects of these tendency's by summarising them in patterns? 2013/4/16 Hamilton Priday <[email protected]> > 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<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
