[Krimel]: > I am unable to comment on the bulk of what you said because > it just flat makes no sense at all to me. But I believe I do understand > the statement above. I suspect the rest of what you say does not > flow directly from the statement above although I suspect it is > fundamental to your notion of Essence as 'absolute'. > > You say, "From the perspective of Essence evolution is a > fait accompli." I take this to mean from some Godlike perspective > time is static and that we only perceive its directional flow by > virtue of being the kind of critters that we are. > > If this is indeed what you mean then I must point out that the > statement is false. This was the kind of universe that Laplace > envisioned and everything we have learned since demonstrates > that it is just not so. The future is not determined even from God's > perspective. History can not be rewound or played forward.
The problem I'm having with most of you is not philosophical but epistemological. It's a rejection of the idea that reality is actually created by experience, rather than something passively apprehended by a cognitive brain. Yet this epistemology is central to Pirsig's Metaphysics of Quality which equates experience with reality. If Pirsig is right, then experience is primary to reality, and all knowledge -- including "what we have learned" from scientific investigation of the objective world -- is no more valid than the intellect's capacity to make sense of it. The endless cycle of debates here as to how the physical universe works as four levels competing with each other is just another intellectual paradigm to force-fit reality into a scheme that's logical by human standards. Instead of faulting Science for failing to portray physical existence as a "moral system", we should be grateful that the "moral neutrality" of objective science has made it possible to discover and apply relational principles effectively to the solution of "real world" problems. Richard Schain, a psychiatrist, believes that postmodernists have abandoned the "metaphysical self", which he defines as "a reality that transcends all others for the individual." He explains why this is a problem quite well, I think, in his essay 'Toward a Radical Metaphysics': "Every self-respecting individual wants to participate in the real world. How is one to know where it is to be found? In the absence of a realometer, the individual has to make up his own mind as to its characteristics. For the vast majority of people, this decision is an unconscious one, framed by the culture and traditions in which their minds developed. ... Material things deteriorate and lose their value, communication is uncertain, love is the frailest of feelings, charity is usually misplaced. Social justice is almost always an illusion and societal power corrupts the individual. Only the realm of the metaphysical self offers a continuing source of fulfillment to the individual in search of the real world." It is precisely this "metaphysical self" (which I define as value-sensibility), and not an external system of atoms, dimensions, patterns or levels, that transforms value into man's awareness of a relational universe. Bob Pirsig says Quality = Experience = Reality. Ham Priday says Value = Experience = Existence. But neither of these equations is independent of a timeless source from which these relational elements are derived. Thanks for giving me credit for the one statement you understand, Krimel. As I said to Ron, I'll be happy to answer any questions that will help you "make sense" of my metaphysics. 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/
