Hey, Ron --
> Some questions to ask ourselves:
>
> ARE the levels discrete or continuous
> are they both or neither,
>
> IS DQ/SQ a schism? of objective entities in source?
> or is DQ/SQ a set of glasses to interpret experience?
>
> are the levels also a function of that set of glasses to interpret
> experience?
Ham:
Let me try this out on you, since you may be the last one here to take
me seriously.
Suppose we forget about levels, whether they are discrete, continuous,
or only allegorical.
Suppose we focus instead on the "reality experience",
I'm not suggesting, as Donald Hoffman did, that Consciousness is the
essence of reality. But I am reinterpreting what Pirsig may have had in
mind when he said "experience is the cutting edge of reality," that when
we experience value as being, we delineate its dimensions and properties
and project them as an organized relational system of finite components.
Furthermore, if we all start out with the same Quality (value), isn't it
reasonable that the objective world we each construct as an individual
represention of value will be a universally shared experience? And, if
that is true, such a concept is not solipsism; it's phenomenalism.
I won't elaborate on the dynamics of this concept or their source, lest
I be accused of logical errors. However, I would be interested in your
evaluation of such an ontology, particularly as it relates to the
statements of Stapp, Wheeler, Heisenberg, Schrodinger, et al. Does it
in any way help
to clear up the "core problems" of the MoQ? Or, does it only add more
confusion
to Pirsig's levels?
Many thanks, Ron.
Essentially yours,
Ham
Ron:
I believe phenomenalism characterizes the theory rather well. As you
most pragmatically suggested, focus on the "reality experience", does
disperse all intellectual quandaries and conflicts.
Nice observation Ham, Marsha's post certainly pertains to this.
This is certainly, understanding the larger scope of the issue.
My focus was on the inconsistency of theory. As we discussed before,
when providing prescriptive meaning, especially at this level of
abstraction, it is important to have consistency of meaning.
When concepts get reduced these inconsistencies become exaggerated.
This hinders explanation and understanding.
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/
