Hamiltons statement.
This is the most intelligent statement to come out of these long-winded discussions in recent months. Indeed, ALL of existence, including Value (Quality), the individual, the experienced universe, process and patterns, intellection, and the Primary Source are inter-dependent realities. They could not arise or exist independently of each other (causa sui). Ultimately we are all dependent on the Essence of Reality. That is what constitutes essential Oneness, whether conceived as the Tao of Buddhism, the Supreme Being of Pantheism, the All-Encompassing of Spiritualism, the Allah of Islam, or the anthropomorphic God of Judeo-Christianity. Arguments to the contrary are either assertions of nihilism or examples of illogical thinking. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- They could not arise or exist independantly of each other?.....implicates that by the simple and solely extiction of one species, ie, the dodo, the tasmanian tiger, the red billed woodpecker, the universe comes to a halt? if and when i'm following the common sense context, Ham,one can take away all life on earth, all of it, and still earth will be there as a lonely planet,but i make you a deal, we keep one person alive, to make this observation.We will kill him later, that little devil. Were the fuck is the red billed? 2013/6/19 ADRIE KINTZIGER <[email protected]> > > > Paul said to Dan: > > ... I said "assimilating a mystic experience" by which I mean something > like, having temporarily "left the mythos" one should not see the > shattering of intellectual patterns as some kind of permanent destruction > of "reality." [Paul previously]: I’m suggesting that the MOQ provides the > basis of a reconstructed mythos, not a means of escape from it. And to > reiterate - this reconstructed mythos does contain subjects and objects but > they become taxonomical instead of ontological or epistemological terms, > simply referring to types (i.e. levels) of value, as you know. > > > dmb says: > > Right. Pirsig says anyone who live outside the mythos is insane. If think > you can live outside the mythos, then don't understand what the mythos is, > he says. That's another reason why the 180 degree enlightenment does not > work. That's why LILA still has to have a theory of truth, despite the > rejection of Objective Truth and the rejection of fixed and eternal Truth. > It's not very hard to see how 360 degree enlightenment comes back around to > everyday life and truth becomes a species of value, a particular kind of > evolving static good where DQ is still the generator. "Truth is a static > intellectual pattern within a larger entity called Quality." This 180 > degree enlightenment, wherein these static patterns are more or less > dismissed (as "hypothetical", as illusions, as ghostly in the unreal and > imaginary sense) leads to a relativism, a nihilism and an > anti-intellectualism. > > Thanks, > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > This taxonomical proposal Paul made, Mr Buchanan, would you be so kind to > analyse the wishffullness of this tought? > I think its important. > Adrie > > > 2013/6/19 david buchanan <[email protected]> > >> Ron said: >> > Seeing how this topic of conversation gets derailed and hijacked >> > by the 180 degree point of view, I would like to ask what form or >> function >> > within the context of mythos reconstruction would serve best in the >> radically >> > empirical method of falsifying truth theories or to be more precise >> finding which >> > theories are better than others. Do either of you see dialectic playing >> a role in >> > this process of inquirey? >> > Also I think what has to be kept in mind when people connect >> correspondence theory >> > with pragmatic truth is that a pragmatist does not seek an ideas >> agreement with >> > experience so much as a discerning which ideas have the most meaning in >> the flow >> > of said experience. Those with the most meaning being said to "agree". >> > >> > I wonder if you also would agree. >> > >> > I believe if an agreement can be arrived at in this context we can >> continue the reconstruction >> > with greater clarity, or at the very least advance the discussion on >> this topic which does not >> > get nearly enough attention. >> >> >> >> >> dmb says: >> >> I don't understand these questions. >> >> >> >> >> >> 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 > -- 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
