Hello Micah --
> Ham, > > The problem is; that Craig is making an assumption (inorganic awareness) > while you are not (nothing). He then somehow is able to think that the > lack > of an assumption is an assumption on your part, which he then asks you to > prove. This seems to happen with great frequency on this list. Muddy > thinking. Yes, on the surface, your analysis seems to make sense. However, since Craig has participated in this forum before, he should know my position on proprietary awareness. I suspect he's toying with me. And, speaking of toying, Micah, when are you going to come out from behind the wall and outline your own ontology? I've mentioned this before. It's one thing to become a pariah for presenting a thesis that contradicts the MoQ; but you appear to have earned that distinction by expressing only cryptic retorts to selected statements by others. What do you stand to lose by explaining the philosophy behind those retorts? I've lost all my messages prior to 3/13, but I recall some thoughtful exchanges we had last year concerning Ayn Rand's Objectivism. Since then, the remarks you've made would seem to support a phenomenalistic worldview, if not solipsism. I, for one, would be interested in seeing a fuller explication of your assertions. I also think it would gain you the respect of this group, however "incompatible" it may be with Pirsig's philosophy. Just a suggestion from a fellow contrarian. Cheers, 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.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
