Robert Stillwell
Sat, 7 Aug 1999 22:41:02 -0700
David, Rich, Roger and Platt, I've been wanting to reply to so much stuff here. But I've been reading Northrop's The Meeting of East and West. What a great introduction to Descartes, Locke, and Kant. I highly recommend it to anyone with a limited background as myself! I can't wait to get into the Eastern stuff. For anyone interested my "dualistic empiricism" idea is utterly different than these philosophers' notion of dualism. Descartes and Locke were not really empiricists and Kant was not a dualist. I thought "dualistic empiricism" was a great catechism, but it is confusing given these old interpretations! Anyway, my ideas are taking off too quickly to present them here. I'm going to type my entire philosophy which I'm estimating will be 25-35 pages when completed. It's the only way I can put everything together. But first some bones to pick....*grin* David, You wrote: > Very complex atoms can be unstable enough to decay. In this sense they are making choices about weather or not to decay. They're having experiences on their own level and have been provided a chance to make a choice by nature instead of us I ask two things. First, where do you get this notion that atoms have experiences? I'm not disagreeing, but curious where you picked this up. Did Pirsig say this? Second, by what mechanism does the choice of an atom enter into my consciousness? What I'm getting at is that I don't think atom consciousness solves the SO dilemma -- it complicates it by adding in more subjects. In other words, if the atom experiences and I experience, how can the atom's experience interact with mine without there being a structure linking us. Again, reality remains dualistic -- experience and external structure. >In the MOQ there are no claims about ultimate reality, its just a better map. It's a better way to explain our perceptions, conceptions and place in the world. Hmmm. Maybe you and I are on the same side. We can tag team Roger and Richi. You hold 'em down! Seriously, are you asserting there is a "world" or "ultimate reality" that is separate from that which is perceived (however unknowable that world is)? If so, does one reconcile this with the MOQ which says there is only one thing -- Quality. Rich and Roger, I'm happy to see you guys agreeing! But I have to jump in.... Are you both asserting the MOQ is an idealism? If so, I honestly can't get around one thing. Suppose -- according to the idealism -- that there are only experiences. By what mechanism do our experiences coincide with the exact same 4 levels? You could say it is DQ. But then I would have to reply that your answer makes DQ more than just experience. I can't experience or directly enter into your stream of consciousness but DQ does! DQ must be some external thing radiating into all of our experiences. I'm not saying we can know the real nature of DQ, but I am asserting reality must necessarily take on a dualistic flavour -- between experience and the casality/structure underlying it. Platt, Awesome quote. But another damn person I must read.... >On behalf of those who, like me, see the Metaphysics of Quality supporting the Copenhagen Interpretation of quantum physics, I offer the following from the book, “Taking the Quantum Leap” by Fred Alan Wolf: >“According to the tenets of the complementarity principle, there is no reality until that reality is perceived.” So, as above, I ask the same question. How can we discuss shared experiences (the four levels) without there being something external to our individual experiences that provides the link? How can there be such a mechanism without there being *anything* outside of experience. > Likewise, in our dualistic language, the word “perception” implies a perceiver and a perceived. The implicit question left hanging when one uses the word "perception” is “perception by whom of what?” I agree that there is no perceiver apart from experience. The observer is the observed. Hence, the dualism of Descartes and Locke is flawed. But ... since there are both "my" observations and "your" observations there remains redefined you and me! Specifically, there is my observed and your observed. (This makes it impossible to avoid using some notion of "I" and "you" when discussing "our" experiences.) Although the self is not external (dual) to experience, doesn't the shared nature of the patterns of experience imply another type of dualism? For example, I can only infer, intuit or assume that you are also observing this conversation. But, given this assumption, what mechanism links "my" observation to "your" observation of this conversation. I look forward to hearing from you guys. Enjoy the rest of your weekends! MOQ Online Homepage - http://www.moq.org Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/ Unsubscribe - http://www.moq.org/md/index.html MD Queries - [EMAIL PROTECTED]