[MD] moq thought experiment 1.

[Marsha]

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Ham Priday" <hampday1 at verizon.net>
To: <moq_discuss at moqtalk.org>
Sent: Tuesday, July 08, 2008 12:46 PM
Subject: Re: [MD] moq thought experiment 1.


>
> Hey, Gav (Marsha mentioned) --
>
> [Ham said]:
>> In my philosophy the Value of Essence is primary to existence
>> and is converted to physical phenomena by experience.
>
> [Gav asks]:
>> Do you mean antecedent by 'primary', ie value is before existence?
>
> Inasmuch as Value is a perceived attribute of Essence, it is 'a priori' to 
> existence.  It is, in fact, the only aspect of Essence that we directly 
> sense.
>
> But your question is discerning, since it is the self which makes value 
> aware as being in experience.  I view existence as the experiential 
> construct of value, and it was in that sense that I referred to Value as 
> primary to existence.
>
> I'm surprised that you didn't challenge me on this point.  (Perhaps that 
> will come later.)
>
> I would also be interested in what you make of this exchange with Marsha:
>
> [Ham]:
>> The notion of thoughts existing somewhere without a thinker
>> is absurd; yet if you take the MoQ and its Intellectual level
>> literally (as I do), it seems to lead to that conclusion.
>
> [Marsha]:
> Literally?  Meaning what?   The MoQ is an analogy.
>
> Exactly how much of a metaphysics of quality should be regarded as 
> "analogy"?
>
> I don't present my Creation hypothesis as an analogy, nor do I expect 
> others to consider Essence an analogy.  All metaphysics is theoretical, of 
> course, because
> proof for the postulates isn't accessible.  Metaphor and analogy are often 
> used to help clarify the concepts presented.  "Thought experiments", for 
> example, are just that -- experiments to stimulate thought.  But it 
> disturbs me when a reputable philosopher articulates his theory is such a 
> way that readers can't separate the metaphor and analogy from the 
> fundamentals.
>
> Marsha's assertion (she's made it before) seems to indicate that Pirsig's 
> philosophy isn't to be taken seriously.  It brings to mind the anguish I 
> feel on realizing I've been hoodwinked by a politician's hollow promises.
>
> What do you think?
>
> Regards,
> Ham
>
>


Ham:  "Marsha's assertion (she's made it before) seems to indicate that 
Pirsig's philosophy isn't to be taken seriously."   WHAT!!! 
Ridiculous!!!!!  I'd stay away from toads for a few days.   -  I won't say 
anything else, I do not want to influence Gav's comments.

Marsha