Ham:
I'm encouraged that you find this topic stimulating. So while you're
head
is still bubbling (with inspiration, I hope), perhaps you can address my
question. As I've said before, the most challenging metaphysical
question
is the origin of Difference. Once you are able to answer that,
Heidegger's
question "Why is there something rather than nothing?" should be child's
play.
Ron:
First, the origin of difference seems to be composed of varying degrees
of value and their interaction, so far science has yet to discover the
basic particles of the fabric Of substance. Every time they split a
particle they find that it is a value composition of it's own in some
way. From
Elementary particles to composite particles to the hypothetical fabric
Of space itself. The big question is not the origin of Difference but
the origin of spin which creates difference in value arrangements. What
is the
Origin of energy? Hypotheses vary about the origin point of energy but
not energy itself which seems to have always been.
Which then brings in your second question why does energy exist instead
of
Nothing at all? To which I reply with quotes from continental
philosophers
About how the very question is merely a fabricated abstract logical
Construct projected into experience. If you read those Quotes.
[Ron]:
> Pirsig's method of the intellectual construct of referring to these
> patterns of experience as Dynamic and Static suffice to demonstrate
> his theory. Plainly, some patterns are denser than others, to use an
> analogy, it works (to my conceptual understanding) a lot like a
> thermodynamic system. " No value" does not exist. That is why I say
> quite literally, we are Quality.
Ham:
Okay, value is ubiquitous and all-pervading. I agree, but only when it
is
removed or reduced from Essence, as in the self/other dichotomy. From a
logical perspective, positing the self as "value" makes more sense than
positing it as as a "negate" or nothingnness', which I have done.
I'm don't know if not Bo Slutvik realized the significance of his
statement
"Intellect is the value of the DQ/SQ divide", but if you simply
substitute
Experience for Intellect in the statement, you'll have my definition of
experiential awareness. That is to say, if the cognizant individual is
value-sensibility, his experience is derived from his sensation of Value
which, in turn, is intellectualized into the multiplicity of things
(patterns) that represent this value. (In my ontology nothingness is
what
divides the phenomena experienced, and it is inherent in the negate
rather
than value or Essence.) That's why I call the individual an agent of
value,
and his experience of the world a "valuistic construct".
I don't follow your mention of the thermodynamic system as an anology.
To
what phase or mode of value is this meant to apply? Maybe you can
elaborate
on that.
This discussion will be more enlightening to me when I receive an
epistemological scenario from you similar to the one I've just outlined.
Thanks, Ron.
Ron:
I thought we were going to throw classical logic out for the
Time being. Explaining it in an epistemological scenario leaves
It incomplete remember ? what the problem seems to be is that you
Seem to focus on that particular branch of metaphysics known as
Cosmogony and conflagulate it with the entirety of metaphysics itself.
The very questions of Cosmogony are misleading by mine and I believe
Pirsigs views too since it contains erroneous assumptions of beginnings,
endings and the nature of existence itself .
Since we are here on the subject, I must ask if Essentialism
Solves all three of the classic logical paradoxes:
1.reconciling a doctrine of causation (similar to the 13th century proof
of God posed by Thomas Aquinas);
2. reconciling the conservation law ("something from nothing");
3. reconciling issues of temporal (as in Zeno's paradoxes) and logical
regression.
I think you have started to address some of these paradoxes but I'm not
Sold on the completeness of your explanations of 1 and 2.
But my point is that thses are paradoxes of logic, not
Paradoxes of experience. That's why Pirsig really does'nt
Even address cosmogony. Which is your real beef with him.
Sorry bout the misfire of my incomplete post.
-Ron
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/
