[MD] Wanted: A proper foundation

[Ian Glendinning]

Read my lips Ham
I didn't say you can't name it
I said "we might as well [give this thing] a name"
Ian

On Wed, Jan 21, 2009 at 9:28 PM, Ham Priday <hampday1 at verizon.net> wrote:
> Hi Ian --
>
>
> Ham said:
> "My criticism [of the MoQ] concerns the flawed epistemology that
> an aesthetic sensibility such as 'beauty', 'importance', 'quality' or
> 'value' can stand independently as the ultimate reality."
>
> Ian:
>>
>> It can't Ham, but neither can anything else actually be an independent
>> foundation, nothing we can name anyway - that's the point. The
>> groundlessness takes some getting used to, so we might has well give
>> this ineffible thing a non-misleading name, whilst we get on with the
>> practicalities of life, a name that doesn't suggest something fixed,
>> tangible and objectifiable.
>
> Why can't we name it, even it is ineffable or indefinable?  I have chosen
> the name Essence because it is the absolute and essential source of all
> experienced otherness.  You may prefer to call it God, Creator, or the
> Itself.  The point is not that ultimate reality is "nameless".  It's that a
> groundless universe cannot account for existence.  An ontology that
> postulates Value as the ground or primary source is illogical because it
> presupposes man's existence, if not also "value-preferring" objects.  What
> you end up with is a philosophy with a false epistemology and no
> metaphysical foundation.
>
> Thanks, Ian.
>
> --Ham
>
> 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/
>