[MD] Animate vs inanimate

[Ham Priday]

Hi SA --


[Ham, previously]:

> If yin and yang are mutually exclusive
> contingencies, that is correct.

[SA]:
> Ok, I understand where you are coming from here.
> I don't know if the MoQ would agree where I come from
> or not, but I notice yin and yang, yet, I see some yin
> in yang and yang in yin, as the traditional drawings
> depict.  This might be where I diverge onto my own
> philosophy, but really not my own since the Chinese,
> and others maybe, have traditionally thought of a
> reality being this way for thousands of years.  I
> don't know where the MoQ stands using this
> translation.

I don't much care for your use of "translates to" and "translation" in your
recent posts.   It reminds me of what they call "fuzzy math", and it leads
to fuzzy thinking.  A thing is what it is, not what it translates to.
Knowledge and ideas can be expressed in poetry, art, fiction -- even
music -- but fundamental principles lose their precision when muddied up
this way.  That's why I'm critical of a philosopher who presents his
metaphysics or morality system as a fictionalized novel, forcing the reader
to interpret the author's real meaning from the dialogue of its characters.
You can see the consequences from the endless debates in this forum.  I'm a
literalist, as you know; I call a spade a spade.  Metaphors and analogies
can be useful in explaining or illustrating a complex point, but
philosophical concepts are difficult enough to comprehend without
"translating" them into ambiguous art forms.

[Ham, previously]:
> The MoQers are always focused on existence.
> What other choice do they have?

[SA]:
> The existence part of your thesis that when
> worded states the contradictions are together, thus,
> the MoQ approaches the world with an implied harmony,
> without contradiction, by putting existence into one
> view called quality.  Whether contradictory essents
> are harmonized or not, quality doesn't boil it down to
> two essents, but you know that, so I'll move on.
>
> Translating nature/reality into human conceptualization
> or a human reality so other humans may understand a
> fundamental integrity.  Again, I don't know if the MoQ
> would look at it this way, but I do.  I also believe in
> naturopomorphizing humans.  I know naturopomorphizing
> is not a word, but you might get my point?  I say
> naturopomorphizing, as I believe trees, deer, cougars,
> etc... project into human reality.  There is always an
> overlapping gray area, for me; and for me, this
> overlapping reality is what I can never distinctly
> make solely human, solely cloud, for birds are here,
> too.  This whole reality is what I participate with.
> This reality, for me, has a view that combines
> bird-human-tree-cougar-etc...  This overlapping
> reality is what you get when you combine creek flowing
> with bird singing with human intelligence with wind
> blowing with bear hibernating with possum eating
> cricket with human experiencing radio, etc...  I
> really can't put it all into words, it's an experience
> fishing at a lake, as well.  Again, this is what I've
> realized before I even knew about Pirsig and the MoQ,
> so, I don't know where this view and experience stands
> in comparison with the MoQ.

You are expressing "feelings", and there's nothing wrong with that.  In
fact, it's the only way we can sense Value.  In philosophy, however, it's
the principle that counts, because it's fundamental to the theory.  You
can't develop a workable system of mathematics on the "baker's dozen".  You
can't define word meanings using only metaphors.  Like any other discipline,
unless the fundamentals are laid out axiomatically, you invite confusion and
obfuscation.  This is what I think has happened to the MoQ.

The philosopher's challenge is to codify the kind of experience you feel
when fishing or bird-watching into a set of basic tenets that can be applied
conceptually to all such experiences.  Ad hominem appeals have their place
in discussion; but nothing beats logic for intellectual understanding.  At
least, that's been my experience.

Thanks for another chance to sound off.

Cordially,
Ham