[MD] Ever redefining self

[Ham Priday]

SA -- 

> What do you mean by rhetorical?

For your information, a rhetorical question is one asked merely for effect
with no answer expected.  Example: When will we ever stop fighting with each
other?   Or your: "Will this undefinable ever stop being undefinable while
we are human beings?"

Asked why you would want to kill a dear, you replied:
> Why not when they are here, they taste great, and
> the meat is very healthy, if you are a meat eater?

I understand that you enjoy "living in the wild", but I see this as the view
of one who doesn't put much value on the life of a fellow creature.  Man
gave up the need to hunt millenniums ago when he learned to domesticate
animals intended for human consumption.  Since then most civilized people
have considered "the hunt" a sport of the affluent, if they engage in it at
all.

> I have thought about getting a gun.  For now, I
> have a bow, and have not invested in a gun, which
> would be much easier and the deer will be on the
> dinner table more often probably.

Very practical.

> We have been on different pages, so I thought
> asking some questions and getting some direct answers
> would bridge our views or apply contrast to our views.
> I'm just trying to see where you are coming from and
> if I can cross to your side of the river.  Simple, I
> thought, but maybe this has to do with how wide the
> river is

Okay, we'll start again.  First question:

> Ham you are not very flexible are you?  (you can
> answer this with a yes or no - don't get all
> worked-up)

No.  Not when articulating philosophy.  Any thesis must be precise in the
terms used and consistent in the way one uses them.  We're not out to make
fudge here.  Philosophy is concerned with concepts that are beyond human
experience, yet are often the belief systems people live by.  Hence, the
need for rigidity.  Pirsig was a brilliant writer, but he strayed from this
rule in developing his metaphysics IMO.

> Why did you say to me earlier what I could easy
> say to you now?  Which is and I quote, "But your
> approach to philosophical dialogue appears to be
> shooting a continuous stream of thoughts at your
> correspondent in the hope that one of them will
> trigger a response.

Following is an example of your stream of consciousness ...

> You have tried to explain to me
> something that appears to be concrete.  Bear with me,
> because this could help me understand.
> You use certain words that are applied and
> understood to have certain meanings called your
> thesis.  I have come from a different angle.  I have
> even tried to state your gathering of value or
> intellect of getting value (or however you may state
> this), the same as the never ending story of desire to
> know something or in other words, the intellect is
> trying to become essence to become complete by the
> bridging of self/other via value.  Of course, this
> bridging and becoming of essence never is fulfilled
> while we are human beings, and so I said to try to
> think over and over again about how to define this
> universe will bring no complete conclusion for all
> will change in time and we will ever have to redefine
> our self.  We can put this into a broad general
> outline.  We are born and we die.  Yet, so much more
> happens daily and nightly and much of it we walk into
> blindly and by hindsight we can make any understanding
> of our experience more precise but that does nothing
> for us now.  We do learn, constantly.  Yet, to think
> we can bring total definition without having anything
> undefined anymore, is ridiculous and a false desire.
> This nothingness you discuss fits into this false
> desire for we will always have nothing left over after
> all this talk and defining of what we are trying to
> say to each other.  We will have learned something and
> at the same time, we will have that aspect of life,
> even though we try to discuss it, that aspect that
> will be undefined, unfilled, as an empty vase that has
> nothing in it.  To not know this is to not recognize
> the bottomless pit of knowledge monsters we could
> become.

Am I supposed to answer this in some way?  If so, can you locate the
question for me?

> You have your language.  I have my language.  I am
> always trying to interpret your language, how about
> giving a stab at my language so we can relate to each
> other.  Build bridges - connect with each other our
> different angles that may or may not be pointing out
> the same understanding.  You might not want to, and I
> understand.  You have your thesis and we should
> understand your thesis.  We wouldn't want to have your
> thesis go to waste.

I have "stabbed" your language, apparently to no avail.  I'd be only too
happy to answer relevant questions, but I can't comment on generalities like
the above, except maybe to say "uh-huh".  Why don't you try posing a
specific question in a line or two, and then we can discuss it?

Regards,
Ham