[MD] Ever redefining self

[Heather Perella]

Ham,


  [SA] What do you mean by rhetorical?

 [Ham}
> 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?

     I thought that's what rhetorical might mean, but
I'm not used to hearing such a term and since you used
it I wanted to make sure, what I thought it was, was
truly what it is.  Thanks for answering my question. 
I believe, and that's why I try to bring up the past
between us, we are stereotyping our discussion without
having a bigger open-mind than we could have.
     When will we stop fighting?  I hope soon.

   [Ham]Or your: [SA]"Will this undefinable ever stop
> being undefinable while
> we are human beings?"

     I really want to know if you believe, think, or
have included in your thesis an acceptance that
reality has this undefinable aspect that I believe
does exist.  I am not going to assume your opinion or
thought on the issue.  That's why I ask.     

 [Ham] 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?

[Ham]
> 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.

     Definitely not a sport because I am affluent. 
This is the United States of America, not England or
another country in Europe.  Pennsylvania has 1 million
hunters that traffic into the woods on the first day
of deer season.  That's more guns in the PA woods than
soldiers in the U.S. military.  If I could find wild
deer meat, which I think to be very healthy and tasty,
etc... in the store, then I would buy that meat over
cow.  It is a matter of taste and the more practical
matter of health.  Also, since many deer are in this
state, many, many, many, then what's the difference
between eating meat from the store as to getting the
meat yourself, gutting it, and cleaning it
(self-sufficiency) when it's less costly to kill it
yourself.  By the way, I have never gotten a deer.  I
have only hunted 3 years in my life, but fishing,
that's something I do much more often.

 
  [SA]> > 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.

 [Ham] Very practical.


  [SA] 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

[Ham]
> Okay, we'll start again.  First question:
> 
  [SA] Ham you are not very flexible are you?  (you
can
> > answer this with a yes or no - don't get all
> > worked-up)

   [Ham] 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.

     Thank you.  I was wondering if that's where you
are coming from.  I don't see anything wrong with
trying to be precise.  

  [Ham]  Pirsig was a brilliant writer,
> but he strayed from this
> rule in developing his metaphysics IMO.

     This is an important point you raise.  I have
heard you state, and I notice as well, MOQ allows for
a lot of debate.  Now the question could be argued
this debating confuses the MOQ or I can also see that
Pirsig made a philosophy come alive, in which debate
was a goal of his.  Can I know if any of these
statements are just my opinion or Pirsig's thinking
behind his philosophy?  I would have to search Pirsig
archives/books or hear Pirsig come outright and say
it.  Isn't this last sentence how you might answer the
question I raised.

  [Ham] 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.
> 
  [Ham] Following is an example of your stream of
> consciousness ...
> 
  [SA] 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.

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

     Do you agree with me or not?  

     I guess I was implying this question in me
stating something, and if you don't agree you say so. 
If you do agree then you say so.  Maybe I'm just
bullshitting and thus, just talking, in order to
sharpen what comes out of my mouth or threw my hands
as I type, is directly connected to my thoughts - so
I'm bullshitting to sharpen my thoughts, my view of
life.
 
    [SA]  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.

  [Ham]
> 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?

     I have posit a question to you above.  Your
answer would let me know what your view of the world
is and what my view of the world is and how close we
are in our views.  This must be how I learn.  I state
something.  You debate or agree with it.  I find out
how far our views are from each other.  That's how I
usually go about bullshitting, discussing, or
philosophizing, whichever way you desire to call it.

Thanks,
SA

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com