[MD] The hard question.

[Ham Priday]

Hi Marsha --

On Fri, May 25, 2012, 5:13AM, "MarshaV" <valkyr at att.net> wrote:


> Greetings Ham,
>
> "Ham Priday" <hampday1 at verizon.net> wrote:
>
>> Of course I can't "prove" this to you any more than I can prove
>> to Marsha that she is a proprietary self.
>
> It cannot be proven empirically, and not logically; got anything else
> up your sleeve?

Only that we can prove and describe things empirically when they are 
empirical (i.e., experienced objects),  But selfness is not a "thing" or 
object.  The self, like Value and Sensibility which are its essential 
components, is self-evident.

You share the problem of semantics with your fellow MoQists, Marsha.  You 
all tend to forget Pirsig's caveat that verbal descriptions ruin the 
concept.  This doesn't mean that the conception is untrue; it simply means 
that the fundamentals are indefinable in empirical terms.  That's why some 
here resort to mathematics and logic as an alternative way to explicate 
them.  But since numbers and logical propositions are relative, that doesn't 
work for metaphysics either.

So, when we deal with metaphysical concepts, we are left with "intuition" as 
our guide.
Although it has credibility only for the author, I like to consider 
metaphysical concepts "intuitive".  The bottom line is that "true meaning" 
is self-revelatory ... another reason for believing in the self.

In other words, don't discredit what you truly believe on logical or 
empirical grounds.
Follow that principle, Marsha, and at least you won't be accused of being 
incredulous.

Essentially yours,
Ham