Hey Ham - [Platt] > > Hard for me to believe that the universe didn't exist before > > we humans arrived on the scene . . . if that's what you mean. > > The universe "comes through" man, is intelligently conceptualized by man, > and is valued by man as his being in the world. There is no metaphysical > distinction between "internal" and "external" reality. Man the creature is > a being, just as is the table you sit at or the house you see next door. The > only thing that separates these objects is your conscious experience which, > with the help of your intellect, constructs these differentiated images from > your sense of value. Because experienced things have value for us, we > perceive them as representative values. Didn't Pirsig somewhere say > experience creates the world? I do know he said that what we don't value > doesn't exist. This is either a euphemism or a truth. If it's true, what > exists is what we intellectualize from value as being, The universe exists > by the same principle.
I take it then that your answer to the question, "Did anything exist before human beings arrived on earth?" is "No." If that is indeed your answer, I suggest that may be why your Essence philosophy has been hard to swallow by participants on this site. That's certainly the case for me. > I maintain that you folks--apparently "you people" isn't politically > correct--have it all backwards. Political correctness has buried what we use to know as free speech. Notice how it has come back to bite Obama when he called his grandmother a "typical white person." > As is typical of existentialists, you are That's a no-no, Ham. Be very, very careful. Big Brother is listening. > persuaded that "existence precedes essence," that things (matter, being) > give rise to experience (awareness), whereas the opposite is true. How else > can you explain that Reality is derived from Quality? If Quality (i.e., > Value) is our pre-intellectual sensibility, as Pirsig says, than what we > intellectualize as a physical world is constructed of Value, not the other > way around. No. Quality has the world, including us, not the other way around. [Platt} > > I for one am no fan of the "oops" theory of creation. I lean toward > > the "Ethical Requirement" theory expounded by the Canadian > > philosopher John Leslie as described in "The Mind of God" by Paul > > Davies. Leslie's theory seems to complement Pirsig's MOQ wherein > > the thrust towards "betterness" solves many mysteries how and why > > there are "firsts" followed by others. > I am not acquainted with Leslie, but "firsts" and "lasts", as I've said from > the beginning, are man's mode of experience. Ethical, to me, is just > another variant of morality--a judgment of man. Time and space are part of > the cosmic pattern that is actualized when awareness is separated from > beingness. The phrase "Mind of God" suggests the same dualism implied by > "mind of man". The difference is that while man can be "mindless", we can > not assume that God is subject to this anthropic condition. Yes, all concepts such as one/many, first/last, right/wrong, good/bad, internal/external, etc. are "man's mode of experience." But, as I've tried to point out, our experience is also the universe's experience. [Platt] > > My cat whose descendants were probably around long before mine > > show every evidence of judging things as "valuable," from the food in his > > dish to the blanket in his bed. In fact I maintain (along with Pirsig) > > that "value" is recognized and acting upon accordingly by every entity > > known, including cats, bugs, cells, and atoms. > Ah yes, that remarkable feline. Again, your "evidence" is behavior. You > know, Platt, the Japanese are designing robots that not only can clean the > home but converse and even make love to the owner. The manufacturers > seriously believe they can market these humanoids to "lonely" or unsociable > people, and they're probably right. I'm reminded of this AI creation every > time I read these posts about man being a byproduct of competing > inorganic/organic/social/intellectual levels. To accept this ideology is to > denigrate proprietary awareness, without which agent there would be no > value, quality, experience, or world. My cat has "proprietary awareness." So does a cockroach. Each knows its own value, quality, experience and world. How do I know? By behavior. Just as I know you are not a robot. [Platt] > > I find "value-sensibility" the essence not just of man, > > but of the universe including man. > Yes, I know. And I can't seem to dissuade you from this 'Mother Earth' > notion. Just be careful to watch where you step. You'll surely be > destroying innocent atoms, if not also a few microbes who value your blood > cells quite highly ;-). This is precisely how Pirsig's evolved levels of morality demonstrate their value. I need not worry about killing off germs who would do damage to my blood cells. It's highly moral for a doctor to kill them. As for destroying atoms, is that possible? -- something about energy can neither be created or destroyed. Be that as it may, I am assured by you that so long as I think the atoms I destroy will be replaced by other atoms, all will be well. After all, that atoms exist at all is all in my head. Regards, Platt 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/
