Greetings,
'Critiques' Denis, they are called 'critiques,' and I answered them all. You object
only because it
is me who writes these things, and so you object without thinking. Take 'atman' for
example. It does
mean the real self, literally transliterated from the Sanskrit as, 'essence.' It was
the Buddha who
denied 'atman' not classical Hinduism. You get this wrong because you are lazy and
your only purpose
is to contradict.
In one case you are right though. I didn't go into detail about the John Wooden Leg
example,
although I thought that the corollary was reasonably plain, and so I will hammer on
this blindspot
once again.
'Water is hot' we are taught and you take this as meaning that we ascribe values to
objects. I think
that it was somewhere about the age of seven or eight that what we meant by this
became clear to me
and, I suspect, almost everybody else in the world bar those who have been brainwashed
by Pirsig's
nonsense on this matter. Temperature is an expression of molecular kinetic energy and
this can only
be understood in RELATION to something else. Thus if I sit on a hot stove I will gain
kinetic energy
from the stove and the stove will lose it to me. The 'hotness' is not in the stove and
it is not in
me it is in the collision of, and in the relationship between, the subject and the
object. It is
'in' the transfer of kinetic energy. Thus when I put my hand under tepid water after a
snowball
fight it burns like buggery whereas if I do the same after a sauna it will feel cold.
It is
therefore plain to anybody that when we say, 'that water is hot,' we are not ascribing
a value to an
object or a subject but to the relationship between them. CONTEXT AND RELATIONS ARE
ALL. The whole
world and his brother agrees with the moq that when sitting on a hot stove the value
is between the
subject and the object and it genuinely baffles me as to why you think your
metaphysics so brittle
that you can't concede this one obvious point for fear of it collapsing around you.
Now I know you find this confusing, or at least think that I find it confusing, but it
is not
confusing and I am not to any extent confused. It is crystal clear, accurate, short
and concise.
Please try and understand it before you let loose with your ill-tempered
contradictions.
I suppose I shall have to defend the metaphor again. The point being made was nothing
more than that
it is logically consistent to postulate that we think we can choose to do things when
in fact we
can't. By extension it is logically consistent to postulate that we can believe we
have free will
when in fact we do not. This was made in reply to the argument that because we believe
we have free
will we do, in fact, have free will. That is all. Your critique has no bearing on that
issue and it
is disingenuous of you to suggest I was trying to substantiate the rest of my thesis
with that one
metaphor.
The rest of your posting simply reiterated your previous confusions, thoughtless
contradictions and
amusing insults. As such it does not require an answer, but your final support of
Hobbes' statement
that,' "Words are all we can discuss about," (Your misquote not mine) almost made me
fall out of my
chair with laughter. I never ever thought that I would see anyone who claims even a
vague
understanding of the moq suggest that linguistic analysis is all we can discuss. My
word Denis, I
didn't for one minute think that you would be so utterly opposed to the moq.
Struan
------------------------------------------
Struan Hellier
< mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
"All our best activities involve desires which are disciplined and
purified in the process."
(Iris Murdoch)
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
