Hi Gav --
[Ham, previously]: > Ideation is a good metaphor for intellectualization. > But it does not create the "stuff" of the universe. [Gav]: > Yes it does. This point is unequivocal. This point is > found in all traditions and in the work of good western > philosophers like schopenhauer, pirsig and plato. You misunderstand me. By "stuff of the universe" I do not mean the finite objects and events experienced. I mean the essence of reality itself. I used "stuff" in the same sense that Robert Lanza did in a recent article entitled "A New Theory of the Universe": "Space and time are not stuff that can be brought back to the laboratory in a marmalade jar for analysis. In fact, space and time fall into the province of biology-of animal sense perception-not of physics. They are properties of the mind, of the language by which we human beings and animals represent things to ourselves. Physicists venture beyond the scope of their science-beyond the limits of material phenomena and law-when they try to assign physical, mathematical, or other qualities to space and time." Although he was talking about the dimensions that frame experiential existence, I see space and time as not essentially different than matter. In fact, when you add energy (or force) to the matter-time-space trilogy, you've got all the quantitative constituents of physical reality, except for one: conscious awareness. If it were not for awareness, there could be no existence. As I said before, existence is a dichotomy of sensible awareness and objective otherness. All other differentiation -- forms, measurements, properties, etc. -- are intellectual constructs which fit your term "ideation". > Our problem accepting this point is due to our > fixation with material reality - literally. 'material > reality' ain't fixed. if you have ever had a strong > psychedelic experience you will have experienced first > hand that that which we thought was static and > concrete is actually in flux. I don't need a psychedelic experience for this realization. I've said many times that existence, and everything in it, is constantly in flux. That's why Pirsig's labels have always seemed reversed to me. The existential world should be described as "dynamic", and ultimate reality, the undifferentiated source, should be conceived as "static" or immutable. > There is no dilemma here, only a call for a profound > shift in perspective. a totally new worldview is the > result - one in which the observer is intimately aware > of his/her creative relationship to what is observed. I don't know what you consider that relationship to be. But I do know that reality is not reducible to "ideas". You may create the form of your reality. But neither you nor your experienced reality is self-supporting. Quality, like the appearance of things, requires a primary source. This is where Pirsig's MoQ falls short, in my opinion. He equates "empirical reality" with ultimate reality, and that is metaphysically illogical. > ian said: >> ie our idea of matter as material objects is >> literally not real, not >> pre-existing our experience and conceptions. > > i need to try bergson out again. i found him very hard > going last time. but yes he seems to be on the same > page. > > if we approach this question from a physics angle we > get to the same conclusion. matter consists of > infinitesimally small particles that zip round and > blip in and out of existence. matter becomes a field > of potentiality. a field that is itself infinite: > unlimited in space and time. indeed space and time are > found to have no objective reality, therefore how can > matter? the observer creates what is perceived > (unconsciously usually) every moment. > > even if this seems just too bizarre, just accept it > hypothetically....can you see now how the idea of god > becomes meaningful rather than an abstract non-entity? > > even in the christian sense...'in the beginning was > the word'...this actually makes sense when you > consider it from this perspective as the 'word' is an > idea given creative power. > > i should probably read the bible too i think. As I remember my bible, Genesis states: "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth." Only after the mythos of Christ was established by the Roman Christians was John quoted in the New Testament as saying: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." When you get down to the fundamentals of reality, in religion or philosophy, it's foolhardy to omit the creator. Thanks for your insight, Gav. Regards, Ham 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/
