[MD] Mereological nihilism

[MarshaV]

SA,

I was struggling.  You did seem to get to the meat of the acorn quite 
easily.  Thanks.


trees,

Marsha



At 08:13 AM 10/10/2007, you wrote:
>      [Ham]
> > For example, it seems to me that Pirsig has taken
> > morality out of the human
> > domain and applied it to the universe at large.
> > Well, if the universe is
> > moral, so is nature and nature's man.
>
>      Way back when I first started I said to you that
>human beings are in the universe, and it is very, very
>easy to understand the well-discussed concept in the
>moq that human beings are a part of nature.  This has
>been much of the meat of the moq, but you are
>convinced that human beings are separate from the
>universe and project your idea onto the moq.
>
>      [Ham]
> > Why, then, should anyone strive for
> > morality?  What purpose does life serve if nature is
> > innately moral?
>
>      How moral is a piece of dirt?  Moral enough, but
>when compared with the other levels dirt is moral
>enough to not be destroyed by the higher levels, but
>the higher levels are more moral.  But you project
>human concepts upon the universe, so, a concept such
>as value or moral only has human qualities to your
>understanding.  But the world includes humans and
>human qualities, but moral and value are not
>restricted to human qualities, so, what good is a
>piece of dirt?
>
>
>      [Ham]
> > Pirsig suggests that we try to "discover" that
>principle on
> > the premise that "some
> > things are better than others".  That would make our
> > role in existence
> > discovering its Quality or Goodness rather than
> > actualizing it through our
> > decisions and behavior.
>
>       Oh how quickly you forget the intellectual
>level, but that's your job.  You are to not understand
>the moq, and say stuff about the moq that is not
>thought through very well.  I'm sure I didn't think
>through on your essence very well, but I don't like
>your thesis that much and you don't like the moq that
>much so we can not put our full thought into our
>respective dislikes.
>
>       [Ham]
> > For me,
>
>      And what you say metaphysics is, is the holy
>bible on metaphysics, correct?  I don't know how many
>times I've seen you play somebody off as not 'being
>philosophical'.
>
>      [Ham]
> > metaphysics is the theory of reality beyond
> > experiential knowledge.  Such
> > theory can only be hypothetical, of course, so I can
> > offer no "empirical
> > proof" for my metaphysical concepts.
>
>      Some people want to be able to acknowledge this
>world, the wind blowing, the laughter of children,
>etc...  You like to offer a reality that is has ones
>'heads in the clouds'.  I'm not being degrading.  I'm
>trying to anaologize your position and how some have
>turned away from this line of thinking.  Some people
>have found the acceptance of being a part of nature as
>very real, as real as a rock and a lady's smile.
>
>      [Ham]
> > All knowledge comes from experience, but if you base
>
> > your reality perspective entirely on knowledge, you
> > will gain more from Science than Philosophy.
>
>       Ah, but the moq discusses not only three other
>levels that differ from the intellectual level, but
>also a dynamic quality about the world that is
>unknown.  Hmmm, these simple understandings of the
>moq, that Ham continues to state the moq doesn't
>provide -?-
>
>      [Ham]
> > The latter draws on logic,
> >  intuition, and reason.
> > Instead of exploring "new frontiers" of knowledge,
> > which is as fallible as
> > experience, Philosophy (especially metaphysics)
> > attempts to identify the
> > fundamental nature of reality and apply reasoned
> > hypotheses to account for
> > what we experience.
>
>       "for what we experience", hmmm...
>
>      [Ham]
> > You say that "by demanding that it include a primary
> > source and purpose, I
> > think you are promoting
> > unnecessary restrictions."   I don't see that at
> > all.  For me, failing to
> > consider primacy and purpose imposes an unnecessary
> > restriction on
> > understanding.  It also reveals a prejudicial
> > attitude toward spirituality
> > and supra-natural or transcendental beliefs.
> > (Another reason for my use of
> > the offensive term.)
>
>       Dynamic quality has been accepted by an unknown
>number of people as where the spiritual, mystic sense
>of the moq steps in.  Even Pirsig mentions this.  I
>don't know about transcendental admittedly.
>
>      [Ham]
> > These are valid questions, Marsha, and they
> > demonstrate that you are
> > thinking...
>
>       I wonder what she or others are doing when not
>discussing essence thesis?  Not thinking I guess.
>
>
>just on the side-lines commenting,
>SA
>
>
>
>____________________________________________________________________________________
>Take the Internet to Go: Yahoo!Go puts the Internet in your pocket: 
>mail, news, photos & more.
>http://mobile.yahoo.com/go?refer=1GNXIC
>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/