[MD] Fw: Nagarjuna and the MOQ

[Ham Priday]

How have you been, Joe? --

On Tues, 9/27/11 at 1:44 PM, "Joseph Maurer" <jhmau at comcast.net> wrote:

> Hi Ham and All,
>
> For a while in philosophic thought it was assumed that the earth
> was flat.  "Value sensibility" is certainly a noble goal.

This is a non-sequitor.  Value sensibility is not a "goal" of philosophic 
thought.  It's the nature of man himself.  We "value" what is other to us 
because it has the being that we (as negates) are denied.  As Sartre said, 
"We want the beingness of the other for ourselves."

> Some "traditional metaphysics" led to inaccuracies.
> Evidence for truth in MOQ.  The logic base DQ/SQ is metaphysical.
> The physical logic, mathematical certainty, denies creation in the
> movement of evolution as division by 0.  Metaphysics is not physics.
>
> Indefinable reality is not illogical in an evolutionary environment when
> described as levels in existence.  S/O metaphysics denies evolution
> and places evaluation at a highest level.

As with your previous analyses to me, I don't see the point you are trying 
to make.  "Accuracy" is not a criterion that can be applied to metaphysics 
which is a theoretical discipline.  That's why metaphysical concepts are 
unprovable, either mathematically or in the empirical sense.  Logic and 
numbers are useful only in relational existence.  Metaphysics deals with the 
reality that transcends existence.  Physics expresses the laws of nature in 
terms that quantify the properties and functions of an empirical world.

Again, your pet equation, 'one divided by zero equals infinity', is pure 
math that tells us nothing about evolution.  I don't know what S/O 
"metaphysics" is supposed to mean, but "levels in existence" is an 
intellectual precept, the names and numbers of which are arbitrary and 
subjective.  Existence is experienced as multifarious and pluralistic, 
whether or not one chooses to describe it as levels.

Joe, if you intend to talk philosophy, I would suggest that you tear 
yourself away from numerical equations and familiarize yourself with the 
concepts of Plato, Plotinus, Aristotle, Descartes, Kant, Augustine, 
Schopenhauer, and Russell, among others in this noble field.

Anyway, it's always good to hear from you.

--Ham

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

> On 9/25/11 4:34 PM, "Ham Priday" <hampday1 at verizon.net> wrote:
>
>> I am neither a revolutionist nor a protester.  My purpose here is simply 
>> to
>>  shed new light on Value realization which is the core element of 
>> Pirsig's
>>  philosophy.  That it also happens to be fundamental to Essentialism is
>>  incidental to you guys, although I probably wouldn't be here if it were 
>> not.
>>
>>  It's possible that there is no place for what I call 'value-sensibility' 
>> in
>>  a philosophy that rejects the subjective self.  It's also conceivable 
>> that
>>  Quality is the only free agent in the universe.  But aren't such ideas
>>  worthy of at least some evaluation in terms of traditional ontologies?