[MD] Chance

[Platt Holden]

On Tue, Jun 17, 2008 at 7:41 AM, Krimel <Krimel at krimel.com> wrote:

To Whom it May Concern:
> Typical Ham below. Not a word about the nature of his intuition and how it
> differs from revelation or faith. No mention of why anyone would should buy
> his primary source as a first principle. Just more loose talk about
> scientific blinders and whining about things he doesn't understand.
> Krimel
>
>
Speaking of scientific blinders, here's one that goes to the heart of the
MOQ:

"The Metaphysics of Quality follows the empirical tradition here in saying
that the senses are the starting point of reality, but -- all importantly --
it includes a sense of value. Values are phenomena. To ignore them is to
misread the world." (SODV)

Reality in the MOQ is a  "vague sense of betterness"  prior to conception
and definition, i.e., intuition.  Without it, science would never have begun
nor advanced beyond the ancient Greeks.

Platt


_______________________________________
>
> Hi Platt (DMB and Krimel mentioned) --
>
>
> > Krimel said to Ham:
> > The Big Bang can easily be conceived as an uncaused first cause that is
> > neither absolute nor undifferentiated. It is the instant of the birth of
> > spacetime. While the Big Bang is a "theory." It is supported by lots of
> > evidence. It does accord with the universe as it is currently understood.
> > It
> > does make verifiable predications about future states. It serves all of
> > the
> > functions of your "Essence" without the quasi-religious overtones.
>
> [Platt]:
> > A wonderful description of the "Oops Theory" of  being.
> > An uncaused first cause is something supernatural for sure.
> > But don't tell that to the priests of science.
>
> [dmb]:
> > Yea, the "first cause" is more or less the God of the philosophers,
> > the God of the Deists. The Big Bang theory, however, is entirely
> > natural. That's exactly why religious people dislike it so much.
> > The only unknown, the only area about which there is no
> > overwhelming consensus, is what happened in the first fraction of
> > a second, a tiny fraction. ...
>
> Other than that, how did you like the play, Mrs. Lincoln?  Inasmuch as
> everything in existence has to start somwhere, this "fraction of a second"
> that is "the only unknown" becomes critical to all other theories about the
> universe.  Certainly it has been the cardinal issue in metaphysics
> throughout history.
>
> But, as you can clearly see, DMB and Krimel are not about to be seduced by
> the "supernaturalism" of metaphysics.  For them, the "real world" of
> experience is inviolable, and all knowledge must be empirical -- based on
> what Science says.  I find it ironic that such closed minds remain on this
> forum to interpret Pirsig's thesis for us.  If they refuse to accept
> anything but a textbook explanation of reality, how can they possibly pass
> judgment on a metaphysics of Quality?  Indeed, how can they appreciate
> Value even as they experience it?
>
> There's a significant difference between imaginative fantasy and intuitive
> reasoning, and wisdom is not enhanced by limiting one's intellectual
> perspective.  If the legacy of the great philosophers is nothing but
> meaningless "prattle", I should have thought that Pythagoras, Socrates,
> Aristotle, Plotinus, Saint Augustine,  Leibniz, Hume, Berkeley, Kant,
> Hegel,
>
> Schopenhauer, Spinoza, Peirce, Wittgenstein, Heidegger, and Pirsig would be
> passé by now.  Seems they're still being read, however.  (Must have
> something to do with the power of witchcraft.)
>
> Thanks for injecting a bit of "uncommon" sense, Platt.  God knows we can
> use it!
>
> Best regards,
> Ham
>
>
>
>