[MD] The SOM/MOQ discrepancy.

[Ian Glendinning]

Ham, Arlo, Craig,

Just joining up some dots.
This how, when, why stuff is about "causation" ... proximate and
ultimate (and a lot more besides) ... and it is a very (very) elusive
subject ... it's actually what I am trying to get to starting first
with basic "logic" in the fine mess thread. We tend to use "if / then"
syllogistic logic very easily in discussing causation, and it can be
very misleading.

Ham said
"There is no contradiction, except for Pirsigians who use "intellect"
(in the collective sense) to mean "documented intelligence"."

As Arlo said, there is some rhetorically implied distortion going on
here, but I only know one person claiming to be a Pirsigian, that is
suffering from that delusion. In fact I am trying very hard to point
out the distinction between that historically documented version of
intellect and a more useful / comprehensive / enlightened kind of
intellect.

Ian

On Mon, Dec 8, 2008 at 11:23 PM, ARLO J BENSINGER JR <ajb102 at psu.edu> wrote:
> [Ham]
> No, Craig.  The question "why?" demands a reason and, like Arlo, you insist on
> a historical answer which gives you only the "how" or "when" of a process
> rather than its cause.
>
> [Arlo]
> While this is a ton of distortion, I'll answer it here by saying that any
> "metaphysical" answer that runs counter to, or makes no sense from, a
> historical perspective is as empty as it is meaningless.
>
> [Ham]
> It's like answering "Why does the TV work?" by saying that it works because
> you've plugged it into the power outlet and turned it on.
>
> [Arlo]
> As opposed to your answer which is "it works because Essence wants it to work".
> While you ridicule the electricity answer, it actually makes sense, and has far
> more explanatory value. And understanding the "process" of electricity is how
> we came to build TVs. If the Lone Genius Edison has simply thought "well,
> electricity works because it is a manifestation of the will of Essence", we'd
> have no TVs.
>
> You, on the other hand, also seem to be saying, "oh, nevermind that pesky
> history, yes yes it makes my claims absurd, but just ignore it, it doesn't
> matter, move along..." Sorry, that's not only a cop-out, it demonstrates that
> your "metaphysics" is simply "Theism" wrapped in big words. "Don't question the
> will of Essence... just believe..."
>
> Sorry, but no.
>
> [Ham]
> but no scientist can tell us WHY it occurred.
>
> [Arlo]
> What reason do you need? It simply "did". No reason, no plan, no "need to
> create beings to worship itself" (which, I add, is a pretty lame-ass reason to
> create the cosmos, that god needs a therapist, not a cosmos of madly adoring
> beings).
>
>
> 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/
>