[MD] [Moq_Discuss] Essentialism: MATTER AND FORM

[Ham Priday]

SA [Ian mentioned] --


[Ham said]:
> I don't see anything "pragmatic" about the MoQ

[SA]:
> Any of these ring a bell?  Brujo, motorcycle
> riding and maintenance, sailboating, dancing,
> classroom education, meditation, houses on a river
> (reminds me of Hawthorne's "House of Seven Gables", a
> certain housestyle, the carpenters, the planning, the
> people that live in the houses, etc...)

My understanding of "pragmatic" has to do with problem-solving in everyday 
life.  Explaining how to repair a motorcyle is pragmatic, I'll give you 
that.  As for the Brujo episode, sailboating, meditation, and houses on a 
river, these are either descriptive reflections on life or analogies used by 
the author to illustrate his brand of morality (non-pragmatic).  I don't 
know what "planning" refers to in Pirsig's novels, and "carpenters" doesn't 
ring any bells.

[Ham, previously to Ian]:
> If they are not testable (i.e., empirically confirmable),
> they remain hypotheses.

[SA]:
> Hypotheses based on faith since they are not yet
> testable, but believed to have value, thus, still
> lurking, which goes for all hypothesis that are not
> yet tested and the underlying philosophy in what a
> hypothesis is (cause/effect or value-based), etc...

A true scientist will "test" his beliefs before extolling the value of 
something he hasn't proven.  In other words, he or she doesn't operate on 
"faith".  That's why I say that faith is an inappropriate term that doesn't 
apply to the scientific method.   It's an arguable point in Philosophy.  My 
personal view is that there's a difference between the conviction of one's 
belief and faith as an obligation to some authoritative commandment or 
dogma.

Generally speaking, a philosopher should be able to support his beliefs with 
a logical ontology.  Failing this, the philosophy is little more than 
poetry, homily, or an expression of personal opinion.  I put Ralph Waldo 
Emerson, Henry David Thorough, and Walt Whitman in the category of 
"philosopher-poets".  They are fine writers, all, and you'll gain much 
insight on life from reading them; but they're not true philosophers, any 
more than Shakespeare was.  I see RMP as sort of straddling the fence -- a 
competent writer, story-teller, and observer of society from a philosophic 
perspective, less competent as a theorist, logician, or metaphysicist. 
(Kindly note that I've qualified this as my personal appraisal.   The 
measure of success in this world is, of course, determined by public 
acceptance.)

Thanks (I think) for your comments.

Regards,
Ham