Ham, [Ron]: > I feel our perception of being aware is based on the grammatical > expression of self/other. Self/other is an illusion of the perception > of complex patterns of energy of varying degrees of density or value. > > This is where we part ways, In MoQ, I believe, we participate on every > level for we are it. Value is sensed by value, our senses are composed of > value which transform patterns. From inorganic to organic to social to > intellectual all transforming at varying rates and density infinitely > which is why it can not be defined as absolute and immutable..
Ham: But your "pattern" is itself Value, is it not? So you have value sensing value, which is a logical tautology. Experience must differentiate otherness in order to perceive objects. How does one differentiate value from value? . Ron: If you use the old Greek rhetorical meaning of the word tautology perhaps, But.. "In 1921, in his Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus, Ludwig Wittgenstein proposed that statements that can be deduced by logical deduction are tautological (empty of meaning) as well as being analytic truths. Henri Poincaré had made similar remarks in Science and Hypothesis in 1905. Although Bertrand Russell at first argued against these remarks by Wittgenstein and Poincaré, claiming that mathematical truths were not only non-tautologous but were synthetic, he later spoke in favor of them in 1918: "Everything that is a proposition of logic has got to be in some sense or the other like a tautology. It has got to be something that has some peculiar quality, which I do not know how to define, that belongs to logical propositions but not to others." Here logical proposition refers to a proposition that is provable using the laws of logic. [Ron]: > We are Quality. > From the thoughts in our head to the edge of the universe > And beyond. Ham: Your concept has a nice ring to it, but this epistemology doesn't hold up logically. Ron: The reason why it does not is because Pirsig criticizes this classical logic, He points out that it is based on assumed axioms. truth only has Meaning within the context of the paradigm of logics laws, it is In no way a concrete universal. What is a concrete universal is The experience of being, the fact that we exist. The big leap MoQ Needs to make is to use a radical logic of topos theory which utilizes Set logic. You see Ham, MoQ is a different animal altogether. To Criticize it from a classical point of view misses the point Of it. MoQ is about alternative ways of thinking, an explanation of how A Metaphysic is formed not so much a Metaphysic in it's own right. It initiates critical thinking of the everyday world we as human Beings inhabit. It points out that many of the problems we face really do not exist as we perceive them, we get upset and develop a feeling Of hopelessness based on intellectual constructs. Ones developed by Subject/object self/other logic. We feel separated and alone because Of it. Seeing the world Holistically as patterns of interacting value Makes the objectification of ourselves and others a bit more difficult And less justifiable. Therefore the people that do think Holistically Find it much tougher to be cold, cruel and unfeeling towards themselves Other people and the world in general Realizing the power Of meaning resides within us. This is not only Pirsig but science In general has come to a similar conclusion about what conceptual Understanding is and how it functions. The very first realization Of this was by the fathers of Quantum physics, who stated that In effect, we are limited conceptually by what we can say about experienced phenomena. 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/
