From: hampday@earthlink.net
Date: Wed Dec 08 2004 - 18:24:24 GMT
Holiday Greetings to Platt, Chin, Sam, and all you bike lovers!
Chin says --
> I have an old '81 Harley and a '78 truck. The work the mechanics do on
them cannot be described as an art form. If I > allowed these so-called
mechanics to maintain my old junkers, that is all they would be is;
'Junkers.' I doubt they would > last another year.
> Quality motorcycle maintenance is indeed a form of art. This seems to be a
dying art form. A blind man could do a
> better job than most of the mechanics I have met that do not recognize the
character in my old bike and truck. It is just > another piece of cold metal
under their hands
Obviously I've touched on a sensitive issue by rejecting the "art" of
motorcycle mechanics. I should have realized this was sacred territory for
followers of ZMM. My apologies to all current and would-be owners of
Harleys, etc.
The point I was trying to make is simply that we all seem to be splicing
definitions and predicates to reach idealistic conclusions, as if solving
the riddle of the universe was a matter patching accepted ideas into a giant
crossword puzzle.
I don't deny that formulating a philosophical hypothesis or a moralistic
novel is a form of art, just as is composing music or painting on canvas --
or maybe even mechanical engineering. But the form in which we choose to
create is methodological; what is significant is the substance. And,
frankly, I don't see much substance coming out of our debates here.
> Anathema to absolutes is caused by youthful rebellion against parental
> authority? I think you're on to something. But, perhaps it's time to grow
> up and concede that there are absolutes of right and wrong, as Pirsig
> says.
Platt, the anathema is realizing that as human beings we all face having to
make responsible decisions in a world whose absolutes are unknown to us.
This is the "heavy burden of Free Will" that Sartre and other
existentialists ranted about, except that their relativist reality was pure
Being. I've reviewed the Heidegger essay and scanned the material on
Onto-theology sent to me by Sam and Chin (thank you, gentlemen), but,
whether the absolute source is conceived as theistic or not, these theories
are all based on Beingness.
Mr. Pirsig has, it sems to me, set a new precedent by presenting us with "a
ground of reality" or essence that is not being-based. The metaphysical
implications are enormous -- IF, and only if, we can accept the idea that
(1) this essence is the absolute primary source, and (2) realize that we
stand outside this essence looking in. Essence (Quality) is the one and
only Absolute; all else -- including "self" -- is relative otherness. The
challenge of "postmodern" philosophy, as I see it, is an ontological one --
namely, to determine how the conditional self participates in, and relates
to, Absolute Essence.
I propose that we begin with the evidence presented by our sensibility. As
I said,
> We have the capacity to realize the Absolute through
> our experience of its Value. This realization comes to us by way of our
> sensibility, which is closer to "intuition" than to rational intelligence
> or empirical knowledge.
> Even a physical law or mathematical "truth" is relative to
> existence. If "existence is relative" is an absolute truth, it follows
that
> morality, too, is relative.
Platt, why do you insist on attributing the "source" to material existence?
That's the traditional existential metaphysics (SOM), rejected by the author
of MOQ. You say,
> Existence exists and is immutable" is an absolute. I see no
> distinction between an absolute and existence, nor do I seek as you do a
> source of existence because existence requires no source. It is what it is
> is, for ever and ever, Amen.
Actually, we don't know that it's "forever", and most cosmologists believe
it had a "beginning". That's "finite" in my book, whether you believe in
creationism or not. Finitude is not absolute. (And that's an absolute
truth, Amen ;-)
> If you posit an Essence as the source of
> existence the question arises,"What is the source of the Essence?" and the
> question never stops. Such is the limit of causation and logic.
I eliminate that question by positing Essence as timeless and omnipresent.
It requires no prior source. This may, as you claim, take a "leap of
faith"; but I think the rationale overcomes the inadequacies of other
ontologies sufficiently to be considered intuitive truth.
> Here we get into the "word game" controversy which is amusing in a way
> because all language is a game we play as we try, always unsuccessfully,
> to explicate direct experience.
My theory is not a word game, nor do I believe the MOQ is. It's a
conceptual hypothesis.
Essentially yours,
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 Dec 08 2004 - 18:26:52 GMT