[Ham to Platt} The suggestion that particles, atoms, and molecules collaborated together to create the universe sounds to me like something from Disneyland. Wouldn't it be more plausible to consider this the work of a "central planner" -- shall we say, a Creator? If intelligent human beings can't work together to stabilize civilization on this planet, how in the world could a disparate collection of insentient objects ever manage to create intelligent life forms?
We can quibble about terms, but this concept of morality stretches idealism far beyond anything Plato ever conceived. Frankly, I find it incredulous. [Ron] I find it most interesting how this thread naturally split in two, one to the mind aspect one to the matter aspect, s/o. I think this shift says something. Value when termed in the realm of mind is best defined as subject object relations. Value in material physics is best described as varing forms and force of positive and negative attraction/repulsion and their relative effects. a probable stuckness point is the translation of the mental concept of value to the physical concept of value. Are they really the same? or is this s/o cropping its head up to haunt us again. does this mind matter resolve work physically as a working metaphor in theory also? in a way yes because it all relates subjectivly to the observer, in a way , no because the language used to desribe both is the same and some of the terminology does not translate well. Like james stated both follow different lines but reffer to the same thing which intersect in conscious experience. The value of the objective world and the value of the subjective world. I think Ham is asking is this REALLY uniting subject and object with the use of a single blanket term? because when you really investigate it, your still left with differing definitions of value. One word, two definitions given the context. When you apply the mind definition to the physical you arrive at Platts view of all reality being a moral hierarchy when you apply the objective definition to the subjective you get a all is random and meaningless view. The Typical scenario of the MOQ discuss opposing views.... Dynamic Quality seems to be the only concept which unifies the two, an incomprehensable source of all, It has been called many things and has been warned that naming it leads to trouble. As soon as you name it it splits in two and one can be taken for the other. this is why the paradox is so confounding and why it is experience that transcends description. Now, how does one present a philosophical unifying concept that can not be communicated using relational terms? This is why I believe Pirsig favors Zen and it's "isness". Intellection taries in dualism. Moq_Discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
