[MD] Percepts and Concepts

[Ham Priday]

On Tuesday, July 07, 2009 3:56 PM, John Carl wrote to Ham:



> How you present  yourself in my experience suggests to me that
> your idea of agreement falls into the category of persuasion.
> But that's just my opinion and I'll let you answer if you wish.

My answer is the same as everyone else's here, you included.  We all try to 
persuade others that our concepts are plausible and sound.  What would be 
the point of participating in this forum if we weren't seeking to exchange 
views and have our ideas considered?

> Although some of your teachings on the innate subjectivity of value
> seems to confirm that you don't even believe in truth outside yourself.
> But again, that's just how you present.

It's no secret that I don't believe Truth (in the absolute sense) is 
accessible to man.  The alternative is either to give up the search or to 
combine intuitive insight and intellect to come up with a logical 
hypothesis.  That's what I have done with the Philosophy of Essence.

I previously said philosophy is not an art form

> Well then, can you please philosophically explain to me the difference?

Art is an expression of emotion in a form other than words.  Usually it is 
created to please the senses by appealing to the esthetic values of the 
observer.  Art is an entertainment, not a form of communication.  The aim of 
art, whether in painting, music, or sculpture, is to arouse emotional 
feelings.  The aim of philosophy is to convey ideas about the meaning of 
life and the origin of existence.

> And I'm assuming you did read Zen and ART of Motorcycle Maintenance and 
> thus
> possess the intellectual idea that the divorce of art from science has 
> been
> an error;  which implies the idea that the divorce of art and philosophy 
> is
> an even bigger  mistake.

I've read both novels, as well as Pirsig's SODV paper, but I don't limit my 
reading to one philosopher, nor do I consult Pirsig on a daily basis to see 
what he has to say on an issue.
Also, I think the notion that Pirsig's message is that art has been divorced 
from philosophy is simplistic. Quality (Value) is to be found in much that 
is not art -- the order of the cosmos, people, romance, morality, 
engineering, gustatory delights, poetry, intellectual ideas, etc..

[Ham]:
>> I adapt my presentation (verbally) as best I can to the correspondent's
>> vernacular and worldview. The overall concept remains unchanged.

> Hmmm...."unchanged"  gives me pause. I wonder if that is actually 
> possible.
> Especially when one is dealing with sophisticated  metaphysical concepts
> which hardly translate well across worldview vernacular boundaries.  It's
> sure not an exact science; in fact, if its possible at all I bet its more 
> of
> an "art" than a science.

Philosophy isn't science at all.  If you're looking for verifiable facts 
about the principles and dynamics of nature, this isn't the place.

> Uncreated source doesn't sound all that different to me than Quality
> with a Cap Q.  I mean, if everything is derived from Value as posited
> by Pirsig, then I don't see the actual distinction.  Quality and Value are
> not perceived attributes of beingness... Beingness is a perceived 
> attribute
> generated by Quality.  Quality and Value's existence does not depend
> upon a subject...  A subject's existence is dependent upon Value and
> Quality.

Says who?  Apparently you prejudge any new concept by what "it sounds like". 
I have no desire to imitate Pirsig.  If you had read my thesis, you would 
realize that every one of your assertions is false.  Value is the perception 
(sensible realization) of essential otherness.  It cannot exist 
independently of the self.

> Maybe you are perceiving something that isn't really there.
> I know on my part, I had no idea of either ridicule nor contempt
> when I wrote what I wrote.  I was expressing  the idea that you
> don't get your AGREEMENT by just browbeating your admittedly
> intellectual inferiors (me) with propositions without good
> argumentative support.  All values are derived from
> (fill_in_the_blank)...
>
> I mean, if you want to overthrow Pirsig, then you need to write a
> book or two that are better than his.  Till then ...

I have written a book.  Whether it's "better than his" or not is a 
subjective judgment call.

John, I don't believe you're interested in alternate views.  I think you 
just want to play word games based on who can make the best argument.  That 
may curl your agates, but it doesn't help explain the MoQ or advance the 
cause of philosophy.

Good luck at finding a willing player.

Regards,
Ham