From: hampday@earthlink.net
Date: Wed Nov 02 2005 - 23:31:55 GMT
Greetings, Erin --
> You verbalize my philosophy with a quote by McKenna
> and Ian. I give you the corrections that none of what
> you wrote were my quotes, I hadn't offered that
> information yet. Then you write this post after I do
> supply that information in which my post about my
> thoughts confirms Ian's beliefs. How can an
> explanation of my thoughts confirm Ian's beliefs?
I've been trying to figure out what it is that has you so agitated. I have
no idea who the McKenna is (or was) that Ian quoted. But in my haste to
quote a recent statement about language and semiotics, I incorrectly assumed
you were a male. That's why I used the pronoun "his" in my statement "Erin
has since confirmed his belief in today's post." Which, in turn, is
probably why you assumed my comment was in reference to Ian's quotation
rather than your own explanation. Please accept my apology for the
confusion.
I am correct, am I not, that the following is your statement?
> For me I can not think of how you can perceive reality
> without semiotics so no I don't see a reality beyond
> language...but I still hold the possibility of an
> external world beyond semiotics but that is beyond my
> ability to ever comprehend one so don't find it useful
> in "believing" in one.
Well, this is precisely the kind of reality concept that I wanted Ian to
know is incomprehensible to me. It typifies the post-modern, techno-psychic
babble that I identify (perhaps wrongly) as New Age philosophy.
The idea that 'Intellect' and 'Language' are not indigenous to human thought
but hang around in some esthetic limbo waiting for man to 'latch onto' or
'evolve to' them is absurd. One must have a strong aversion to
individuality in order to believe such nonsense. Not only is man the
inventor and sole user of language, intellect is his proprietary gift.
Through the use of his intellect and language, man is the 'choicemaker' of
the physical world. That's MY explanation.
Now, in a later post, you suggest:
> Explore this site for awhile and then let's talk about
> how you feel about it..right now I think your trying
> to lump it in New Agey stuff is really not helping our
> communication
I wasn't aware that we have been communicating. Anyway, I've followed this
site for more than two years, only to become more disenchanted with each
visit. What I've learned in this time is that the MoQ is more prose than
substance, that it has no formal ontology or metaphysics supporting it, that
it follows in the trail of Darwinism, ignoring the individual and his
purpose in the universe, and outrightly rejecting anything resembling a
"supernatural" source.
When a loyal MoQer like Michael has the temerity to suggest that
subject/object duality is fundamental to experience, he expects to be chewed
to pieces for reintroducing SOM. Yet, here are Erin and Ian, describing
their views of reality as an experience in semiotics, and the gang accepts
it in stride.
In my view, there are some fundamental things missing in Mr. Pirsig's
thesis:
namely, the individual and his/her proprietary awareness, existence with its
subject/object duality, a reason for living in this world, and some insight
as to its primary source. Until I see a move toward filling these
vacancies, I shall continue to express my discontent with this philosophy.
Nonetheless, I appreciate your interest, Erin. Let me return the suggestion
you offered by inviting you to explore my thesis at www.essentialism.net.
(See if it doesn't make more sense to you.)
Best regards,
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 : Thu Nov 03 2005 - 03:23:13 GMT