From: Platt Holden (pholden@sc.rr.com)
Date: Thu May 05 2005 - 15:36:06 BST
Hi Ham,
I'd like to ask some questions about your Creation hypothesis:
> Instead, I'm persuaded that the transcendent component of existence is
> Value. If you read my Creation hypothesis, you'll see that it is based on
> a negational ontology. Creation involves a negation or "denial" of Essence
> Value which leaves a "nothingness" in its place.
Who or what denied Essence? And why?
By "Creation," do you mean creation of the physical world?
> Nothingness is what
> differentiates the physical world, beginning with the division of "other"
> (beingness) from "not-other" (proprietary awareness)
How can nothing divide or do anything?
Isn't "proprietory awareness" also "beingness," i.e., doesn't it also
exist?
> The denied Value of
> these essents is reclaimed in the process of experience.
How?
Why?
Was "the process of experience" created with the denial of Essence?
> So, if the
> individual has a link to ultimate reality (i.e., Essence), it is a
> valuistic link. That's my hypothesis in a nutshell.
By "valuistic" do you mean some things are better than others? If not,
what do you mean?
I've tried to get the answers by reading your paper, but I need help, if
you have the time and patience.
> Again, your assertion presupposes a "universal" Quality which has not
> adequately been defined by MoQ's author. You yourself denied that Pirsig
> ever meant that Quality could exist independently of the observing subject,
> but that he equated it with "direct experience". That's my hangup, Platt.
Did I deny that Quality could exist independently of an observing subject?
If so, I categorically renounce my denial. I thought I always made it
clear that "direct experience" came prior to such intellectual concepts as
an "observing subject." You think the two are inseparable, but I don't
think I can be held responsible for the conclusions you jump to. :-)
> Now, IF someone were to postulate a primary reality -- complete with a
> metaphysics relating it to differentiated existence -- and chose to call
> that reality Quality, then you might have a bonafide philosophy instead of
> just a cultist belief system. (Of course, if he chose to call it Essence,
> nobody would pay any attention.)
Why do you find it necessary to call the MOQ a "cultist belief system?"
That seems to be a gratuitous put down to some rather intelligent people.
> By the way, what does it mean to be Christian "in name only"?
It means if someone were to ask me if I'm Jewish, I'd answer no, I'm
Christian.
Best,
Platt
>
> Essentially just
> 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
>
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 : Thu May 05 2005 - 15:49:50 BST