Greetings, Krimel --
Thanks for supplying this contested statement that I was unable to find in
my e-mail box and had asked Platt to locate for me.
Evolution as a general principle is about how these static patterns
or strange attractor arise spontaneously and persist across time in
relationship to one another. One might say the evolution is "pulled"
toward these strange attractors or spontaneously arising
configurations of order. But as you are well acquainted with
Prigogine I am a bit taken aback that you have not commented on
the significance of this yourself.
Since the MoQ consistently refers to static patterns and levels of
static patterns I do not see the problem with attempting to
understand in a bit more depth just what they are and where they
come from. Neither do I see how the assumption that nature is
patterned or orderly implies SOM or is inconsistent in the slightest
with the MoQ. There is nothing in this that implies subjects or
objects or even makes reference to patterns of "what".
The principles hold whether we are talking about patterns that are
extended in space and time or whether they are patterns of thought
extended perhaps only in time. In an abstract sense they do no
even require an observer. ...
I would disagree with the last sentence, if your meaning is that the
patterns (objects) require no observer. Otherwise, this is a thoughtful and
lucid analysis of objective experience, a.k.a. SOM.
You continue ...
They are merely relationships of figure (SQ) and ground (DQ)
or relationships among distinctions, perhaps. Metaphysically all
this is patterned SQ and unpatterned DQ as distinctions in
undefined and otherwise unknowable Quality.
Pirsig call these relationships Values so you might conceive of a
distinction as a relationship between different Values of Quality.
I have never liked these terms even dating back to my first
reading of ZMM. I am forced to continually translate them into
more sensible terms; Value in its sense of quantity or relative
dissimilarity and Quality of course as Tao.
Pirsig's use of Value is certainly more than a "term". The sense of Quality
or Value is the very foundation of the MoQ. And, for your information, it
is also the ground of experiential reality in my own thesis. But value
sensibility requires a cognizant subject--and that, unfortunately, is what
both you and Pirsig dismiss. To have a cognizant subject with something to
value also presupposes a cause or source that transcends existence. This,
too, has not been acknowledged, which means that you stand in violation of
the 'ex nihilo' principle. But, in keeping with the postmodern nihilism
that scorns any concept of a primary source, I'm sure the illogic of your
position doesn't cause you to lose sleep at night.
Back on 8/26 you responded to my quoted excerpts from Apologetics Press, as
follows:
So let me get this straight in an effort to "...to see what the
scientific objectivists themselves had to say on the matter."
You turn to Apologetics Press? This is a fundamentalist
Christian printing house.
I confess to not knowing this at the time. The quotations were edited by
two Ph.Ds, which I assumed to be scientists, and the bibliographical
references were eminent and well-known scientific researchers. The only
mention of God was in relation to phenomena whose existence could not be
objectively be accounted for. I did not see this as particularly
"religious". Your Eccles quotation bears out Apologetics' point:
"The arguments presented by [American biologist H.S.] Jennings preclude me
from believing that my experiencing self has an existence that merely is
derivative from my brain with its biological origin, and with its
development under instructions derived from my genetic inheritance. If we
follow Jennings, as I do, in his arguments and inferences, we come to the
religious concept of the soul and its special creation by God....
"I cannot believe that this wonderful divine gift of a conscious existence
has no further future, no possibility of another existence under some other,
unimaginable conditions (1967, p. 24, emp. added).
Neither can we!"
I'm happy to add Eccles to the list of scientific "believers". Thanks for
the quotation and your response.
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/
