[MD] The differentiating nothingness

[David M]

Ham

This being an MOQ site, you really should make the effort
to use your ideas to criticise the MOQ if you have something to
offer that it lacks in your opinion.

DM


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Ham Priday" <hampday1 at verizon.net>
To: <moq_discuss at moqtalk.org>
Sent: Sunday, March 12, 2006 7:05 PM
Subject: Re: [MD] The differentiating nothingness


>
> Hello SA (Scott and Platt mentioned) --
>
>
> Back on 2/12, shortly after you joined the MD, you told me your goal was 
> "to
> understand where Scott, Platt, and Ham are coming from on each point of
> discussion."
>
> Fair enough.  But I can't speak for Scott or Platt.  I can only tell you
> that Scott and Platt are long-time adherents of Pirsig's ideas, and both
> will defend the MoQ against challenges from outsiders.
>
> In my three years with this forum, I have found Scott to be a master
> logician who has found some faults in the MoQ.  In the course of 
> identifying
> these faults, he has made several statements that don't make sense to me, 
> as
> one of the 'outsiders'.   Here are a few:
>
> [Scott]
>> I reject the concept of "primary source" in metaphysics
>> (it leads to idolatry).
>>
>> We don't need a primary source because --
>> metaphysically -- we don't need to separate "everything"
>> into "source" and "consequence".  ...In my view, any
>> metaphysics that does not make use of the logic of
>> contradictory identity will end up as idolatry.  [5/16/05]
>
>> [O]ne cannot say that essences exist, and one cannot say
>> that essences do not exist, etc.  [8/27/05]
>
>> The sense of self arises when our will,
>> including our intellectual will (e.g., trying to solve
>> puzzles), gets frustrated. In pre-intellectual days,
>> this wouldn't happen, since people didn't think of
>> themselves as autonomous at all.  [11/04/05]
>
>> There is no undivided source ontologically prior to
>> differentiation or negation, nor is differentiation a
>> source. There is, that is, no source above and beyond
>> what is, which is CI, which is consciousness, value,
>> and/or semiosis, depending on the point one wants
>> to make. Such a source is an idol.  [2/3/06]
>
> As for Platt, you will see that he looks upon the MoQ as a reinforcement 
> for
> his aesthetic
> appreciation of Beauty.  Platt is essentially a connoisseur of art and 
> music
> who has tried valiantly to equate Quality with his conservative
> socio-political ideology.  He appears to have little interest in 
> discussing
> the metaphysical fundamentals of philosophy.
>
> In my initial talks with you, I expressed my own goals as follows:
>
>> My overall objective is to get my Philosophy of
>> Essence across, but it's usually necessary here to
>> explain it in the context of the MoQ.  So I find
>> myself tailoring my responses to the specific
>> mindset or belief-system of the person I'm talking to.
>> You are a good "test case" for me; you understand
>> what Pirsig meant by Quality, but you haven't yet
>> been indoctrinated to the DQ/SQ hierarchy
>> developed in LILA.  This was exactly my position
>> when I joined this forum.  So I have an opportunity
>> with you to expound Essentialism as simply as I can
>> without resorting to the MoQ analogies.  [2/13/06]
>
> I prefer to keep it that way.  That is, I'm always happy to answer 
> questions
> relative to Essentialism; but I cannot interpret my philosophy in a way 
> that
> supports Anti-theism, Pantheism, Semiotics, New Age multi-dimensionalism,
> Physicalism, or Nihilism.
>
> Meantime, good luck to you in Qualityland.
>
> Regards,
> 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/
>