Hi Ham,
> [Platt, to Ron]:
> > You are onto something important in that Pirsig is the only
> > philosopher I know of who has taken quantum research into
> > account, namely the discovery that the dualistic mode of
> > knowing (SOM) with its divisions of subject/object, cause/effect,
> > mind/matter, etc., is ultimately shortsighted. One need only refer
> > to the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle to discover SOM's
> > blind spot. A higher mode of knowing, the mode acknowledged
> > so forcefully in the MOQ, is that of pure, direct experience,
> > prior to any dualistic concepts whatsoever. As William James
> > observed, "To know immediately then, or intuitively, is for mental
> > content and object to be identical." Or, as Heisenberg himself said,
> > " . . . the common division of the world into subject and object,
> > inner world and outer world, body and soul, is no longer adequate
> > and leads us into difficulties." And again, as Erwin Schroedinger
> > put it: "Subject and object are only one. The barrier between them
> > cannot be said to have been broken down as a result of recent
> > experience in the physical sciences, for this barrier does not exist."
>
> Oh, but it does, Platt. In fact, the self-other dichotomy is the defining
> principle of Existence.
> This is what I've been trying to get across to the Pirsigians. Existence
> is
> fundamentally a relational system in which all beingness is differentiated
> and value is realized as a polarized spectrum from good to bad, better to
> worse, moral to evil, beautiful to hideous, etc. When Heisenberg said
> that
> this "leads us into difficulties," he was talking to physicists who depend
> on consistent, reliable data for their conclusions.
>
> Quantum physics pushes experiential data beyond the threshold of human
> sensibility, where entitites no longer hold to measurable parameters.
> That
> was the "difficulty". The finite human observer cannot cross the barrier
> of
> existential reality because he himself is an "existent". And William
> James
> was saying that we can only know "intuitively" that awareness and its
> object
> are one. That, I submit to both of you, is metaphysical insight, not
> experiential knowledge. A "field theory of states", as Ron describes it,
> is
> still differentiated and relational. According to Essentialism (as I
> define
> it), subject-object realization cannot exist without a "clean break"
> between
> differentiated contrariety and Absolute Essence.
>
> I hope you will forgive my butting into your discussion, but I can't stand
> idly by while Essentialism is incorrectly applied to non-metaphysical
> scientific and philosophical theories.
> Thanks for indulging me in these comments.
With the election of a far left radical, opponents of the government may be
banned from free expression as purveyors of "hate speech." Such bans have
already occurred on college campuses throughout the country in the form of
"Speech Codes." Conservative talk radio is about to be silenced under the
banner of a "Fairness Doctrine." Inevitably such leftist attacks on free
speech will spread to the internet as we see happening now in Australia.
I mention this to welcome your "butting in" to this and any other
discussion while you still have the chance. I know Horse who manages this
site will do his best to hold off the censors. But the forces now being
arrayed to control what can and cannot be said are mighty.
As for the vanishing of the S/O split in quantum theory, it reflects the l
experience of physicists who have probed the foundations of reality. Thus,
I characterize as "experiential knowledge" just as any other knowledge I
haven't necessarily experienced myself -- like having a billion dollars.
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/
