[MD] The Singularity is near

[Laycock, Jos (OSPT)]

Hey Ham - 

The term is "Bugger", (we really are less polite in England than most people
assume) but for now I have no desire to apply it.
I have to do some work for the next couple of days but will be very happy to
continue this soon.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: moq_discuss-bounces at moqtalk.org
> [mailto:moq_discuss-bounces at moqtalk.org]On Behalf Of Ham Priday
> Sent: 15 August 2006 19:58
> To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
> Subject: Re: [MD] The Singularity is near
> 
> 
> 
> Jos --
> 
> Forgive me for the typo.  (I've never known anyone called by 
> Jos, so the
> spelling is unfamiliar to me.  I'll try to me more careful in 
> the future.)
> 
> For your information, SA calls himself Spiritual Adirondack 
> and came on
> board here in January using his wife's e-mail handle, Heather 
> Perella.  He
> likes poetry, Buddhism, and writes stream of consciousness 
> statements that
> usually contain rhetorical questions.  You are an entirely 
> different breed
> of cat, which is why I was surprised by that 
> uncharacteristically rambling
> paragraph in your last post.
> 
> 
> > I think I'm going to agree to disagree here, I know it's a bit
> > weak not following these things right through but when I read
> > all this back I see a round of statements about our own beliefs.
> > Admittedly interesting, but when they seem to be so
> > fundamentally at odds, it's not taking me anywhere.
> 
> Where do you want to be taken?  I'm at odds with most of the 
> people I talk
> to, but I don't see this as unusual in a philosophical forum.
> 
> > Just out of interest, how Pirsigian do you consider yourself to be?
> > I think I had wrongly assumed some things, and was slightly
> > misdirecting my "inquisition".
> 
> The questions you asked were an appropriate response to my 
> assertions, and I
> take no offense.  You assume correctly that I generally use the term
> "Pirsigian" to distinguish my own views from those of the 
> majority here.
> This doesn't mean that I'm anti-MoQ or unappreciative of 
> Pirsig's attempt to
> overcome subject/ object reality by basing his philosophy on 
> an aesthetic
> principle.  I just don't think he's succeeded in that goal.
> 
> The reason I defined Existentialism in my last post was that 
> I think it is a
> kind of objectivism that is characteristic of the postmodernist
> philosophies, including the MoQ.  Consider this synopsis from Dagobert
> Runes' Dictionary of Philosophy:
> 
> "Existential Philosophy arose from disappointment with Kant's
> 'thing-in-itself' and Hegel's metaphysicism whose failure was 
> traced back to
> a fundamental misrepresentation in psychology.  It is strictly
> non-metaphysical, anti-hypothetical, and contends to give 
> only a simple
> description of existent psychological realities.  'Existence' 
> is therefore
> not identical with the metaphysical correlative of 'essence'. 
>  Consciousness
> is influenced by our nervous system, nutrition, and environment; these
> account for our experiences.  Such terms as being, equal, similar,
> perceived, represented, have no logical or truth-value; they 
> are merely
> biological 'characters'; a distinction between physical and 
> psychological is
> unwarranted.  Here lies the greatest weakness of the Existentialist
> Philosophy, which, however, did not hinder its spreading in both
> continents."
> 
> You see, while you folks claim not to be objectivists (since 
> Pirsig has
> resolved dualism), and you are not Essentialists (because you reject a
> primary source), that seems to leave you as non-materialists 
> (Qualityists?)
> who also don't believe in the reality of the individual.  Not only do
> Pirsigians regard consciousness as "influenced by our nervous 
> system and
> environment", they make no real distinction between the 
> biological level and
> the intellectual level, or between proprietary awareness and 
> the collective
> Intellect.  Can you not see why the MoQ could easily be viewed as an
> existentialist philosophy whose "Beingness" is Quality 
> instead of matter?
> 
> If you disagree, please tell me why.  For the record, 
> inasmuch as you recall
> discussing my philosophy previously, Essentialism is founded 
> on a primary
> source [Essence] which is actualized as a self/other 
> dichotomy [existence]
> in which man is the free agent.  What drives the individual 
> [self] is the
> Value he perceives in the other.  If this concept of reality 
> puts you at
> odds with me to the extent that any further discussion would 
> be unproductive
> from your perspective, let me know and I will "bug off" as I 
> think they say
> in quaint old England.
> 
> Essentially yours,
> 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/
> 
> PLEASE NOTE: THE ABOVE MESSAGE WAS RECEIVED FROM THE INTERNET.
> On entering the GSI, this email was scanned for viruses by 
> the Government Secure Intranet (GSi) virus scanning service 
> supplied exclusively by Cable & Wireless in partnership with 
> MessageLabs.
> In case of problems, please call your organisational IT Helpdesk.
> The MessageLabs Anti Virus Service is the first managed 
> service to achieve the CSIA Claims Tested Mark (CCTM 
> Certificate Number 2006/04/0007), the UK Government quality 
> mark initiative for information security products and 
> services.  For more information about this please visit 
www.cctmark.gov.uk


This e-mail (and any attachment) is intended only for the attention of the
addressee(s). Its unauthorised use, disclosure, storage or copying is not
permitted. If you are not the intended recipient, please destroy all copies
and inform the sender by return e-mail.

Internet e-mail is not a secure medium. Any reply to this message could be
intercepted and read by someone else. Please bear that in mind when deciding
whether to send material in response to this message by e-mail.

This e-mail (whether you are the sender or the recipient) may be monitored,
recorded and retained by the Department For Constitutional Affairs. E-mail
monitoring / blocking software may be used, and e-mail content may be read
at any time. You have a responsibility to ensure laws are not broken when
composing or forwarding e-mails and their contents.



The original of this email was scanned for viruses by Government Secure Intranet (GSi)  virus scanning service supplied exclusively by Cable & Wireless in partnership with MessageLabs.
On leaving the GSI this email was certified virus free.
The MessageLabs Anti Virus Service is the first managed service to achieve the CSIA Claims Tested Mark (CCTM Certificate Number 2006/04/0007), the UK Government quality mark initiative for information security products and services.  For more information about this please visit www.cctmark.gov.uk