[MD] Perennial Philosophy vs. empirical truth

[Joseph Maurer]

On 5/26/10 10:43 PM, "Ham Priday" <hampday1 at verizon.net> wrote:

> 
> Hi Adrie [Joe Maurer quoted] --
> 
> 
>> Ham, superb post.  I agree on all of it, Pirsig, Huxley and
>> strangely but true also your conclusions and abstractions.
>> Problem is this: I can think of it all in my language and in
>> this context, but I want to type it and the words just
>> don't come.
>> 
>> I agree, especially on Pirsig's Huxley insight.
>> And I furthermore strongly agree on your statement not to
>> pursue to an endless level the DQ/SQ/truth/value train.
>> Because of a reason, of course, not to become niche products
>> in our own niche, trying to explain the working principles of
>> a color to a mouse, or the layout of a computer to a bacterium,
>> but missing the point entirely that, by adding properties,
>> the original intrinsic properties are, in fact, downscaled
>> to a lesser property.
>> 
>> This is where Pirsig Broke free, not allowing to define boundaries for
>> Quality,
>> desintegrating Quality by adding properties.
>> 
>> MoQ! without definitions.
> 
> Thank you for the kind words, Adrie.  And please excuse me for editing them
> slightly.  Mice and bacteria being taught principles they are incapable of
> understanding is a perfect analogy for man confronting an absolute source.
> 
> You're right that we can't put into words what we don't experience.  But it
> is possible to express an 'intuited' conception by means of analogy,
> metaphor, or even logic.  This is what I have tried to do with my
> metaphysical ontogeny.  It's difficult because people tend to react
> negatively toward certain terms and principles for reasons that have more to
> do with personal bias than with logic.  Here's an example from a response
> posted just after yours:
> 
> [Joe]:
>> Are you equating DQ with a divine reality?  I don't think that is
>> a correct understanding of what Pirsig meant by DQ.  I use DQ
>> as an affirmation that there is a lot I don't know.
>> 
>> Logic is a strange tool.  "The Absolute Source" sounds like a
>> contradiction, since "Source" indicates "a beginning," and
>> "Absolute" is without restriction.
>> 
>> It is difficult for me to see the logic in a negation "not-other"
>> becoming absolute Essence? If negation is eliminated, it seems
>> that affirmation is also eliminated, and imagination is not
>> a trustworthy source.
> 
> "Divine reality" was Huxley's term, not mine; but Joe understands it only in
> a religious context which surely could not be "what Pirsig meant by DQ."
> But if we're searching for Truth, what difference does it make if the analog
> stems from religion, philosophy, or science?
> 
> Joe also thinks Absolute Source is a contradiction because "Source indicates
> a beginning."  That may be true in SOM terminology, as in the originating
> point of a stream.  But "source" is derived from the French word  'sourdre'
> which connotes "surge" (to spring forth) rather than beginning.  Absolute
> does mean "without restriction", and this is why the negation principle is
> necessary to explain the ontogeny of Essence.  Existence (otherness) is not
> an "add-on" to the Absolute; it is a negation or reduction of absolute
> sensibility.
> 
> His last objection is simply a misunderstanding of my ontology.  "Not-other"
> does not "become absolute".  Instead, what is negated by Essence is affirmed
> by the realization of value.  This is what we, as value-sensible agents, do
> with each successive experience in life.  The "process" of existence comes
> full circle at the completion of the individual's life cycle, and with it
> comes the end of change and contrariety.
> 
> These are only speculations on my part, of course, but they seem to make
> sense of the empirical fact that life is an individual experience, despite
> the need for a primary source to support it.
> 
> Welcome to the forum, Adrie.  I can see that your perceptive comments are
> already sparking new ideas which can only increase interest in these
> discussions.
> 
> Best regards,
> Ham

Hi Ham,

Thanks for clarifying my misunderstandings of your ontology.

Joe
> 
> 
> 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/md/archives.html