From: hampday@earthlink.net
Date: Wed Apr 20 2005 - 18:30:48 BST
Hi Ian --
> The meat of the matter. Erin / Scott / Ham, if you're game,
> I think we have something to discuss.
I've always surmised that you were "potentially" an essentialist, but there
are so many distractions in this forum that "the meat of the matter" has
gotten preempted by socio-political forays. So, where would you like to
start?
Since you've been talking science, perhaps a brief preamble on the most
common approaches to knowledge would be appropriate here.
No one -- least of all me -- wants to attack the scientific method, which is
the most efficient and pragmatically productive means devised by man for
making the material world more beneficial to human life. (I'm referring to
pure Science, and not technology, which I think has grown out of control.)
Although most of us have reservations about religious doctrine as a source
of knowledge, there should be no need to attack either a spiritualistic
belief or a particular religion on rational grounds. Religion has nothing
to do with rationalism. (I'm told that the name stems from the Greek word
"religio", meaning "to bind"; so it's not surprising that religious leaders
seek to perpetuate their faith by holding believers to traditional
ecclesiastical dogma and symbolism.) Eastern mysticism, shorn of its
folklore and rituals, is something else again; to me, its most valuable
teaching is the Oneness of the universe.
So, unless we want to stir up new excitement for New Age occultism, that
leaves Philosophy as the discipline on which we should be focused. I'm game
for this, so long as the discussion does not dwell unnecessarily on
historical precedent or get us involved in a comparative analysis of the
major philosophies. I think we've established that practice as
'philosophology', and while it has a legitimate place for the scholar, it
can be an annoyance to those of us trying to have a progressive dialectical
discussion.
Presently I feel a need to clear up some possible confusion in my Creation
hypothesis which, hopefully, will result in a simpler version of the entire
thesis. A good discussion of the salient points with MoQers like yourself
would be most beneficial. In return, I promise not to engage in wholesale
criticism of Mr, Pirsig's philosophy, apart from pointing out the
discrepancies as I see them.
In that context, I suggest that we might begin with the critical issue in
metaphysics: Where and how does differentiation occur? But if you'd rather
pursue another issue, I'm still game.
Thanks Ian,
Ham
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Apr 20 2005 - 19:07:04 BST