Ham 13 Jan. you wrote: > Here's the gist of what Pisig says about causation in LILA: > "The only difference between causation and value is that > the word 'cause' implies absolute certainty whereas the > implied meaning of "value" is one of preference." > I would suggest that there is another difference: the passage of time. > Without the temporal dimension (of human experience), causation as the > direct result of a prior action or event would be impossible. If time > is the mode of experience, rather than an inherent property of > existence, Value is "causative" non-sequentially, while "preference" > remains the property of the observing subject.
In my post to David (Swift) I said that Kant deemed TIME along with SPACE and CAUSATION to be "modes of perception" so in a Kantian context you are right, time is a subjective filter that must exist "apriori" in the subject for it to make sense of experience, but then Kant was the ultimate somist and we are not somist. > Creation then becomes a differentiated product of experience with Value > as its source. I define the subject of existence as value-sensibility, > and the "actualized" world of experience as its creation. This avoids > the necessity of chicken-and-egg, cause-and-effect scenarios and the > "forests of pulpwood" which Pirsig laments being sacrificed to debate > the issue. Here you are back at the "man the measure" idea. Existence a result of Value's interaction with the subject, but as we know Pirsig had left that in LILA's MOQ. There is the Dynamic Value that has spawned the known Static levels ... and only on the intellectual level did mankind start to speculate about time and space and causation. > Marsha says to David Swift: > > I hope that your strictly physical performance is some kind of > > interpretative dance, because if you are going to use words to > > explain it will have a mental component. > That's a red herring, Marsha. There is no alternative to words for > explication, which is why we have philosophy. Agree, but don't you see how this bounces back on you Ham? The subject like language disappears in any description of reality. If one insists on either being existence's deepest ground one has a language or a subject metaphysics. This may be above Marsha's, but you "..my som Brutus" > .... And, Bo, as I've said before, when you reject subjects and > objects, you eliminate Value. Me rejecting S/O? On the contrary it the highest static (intellectual) value. [Bo, continues]: > > As said I don't believe that a value versions of the scientific > > disciplines (f.ex. a Q-physics where "B values precondition A") has a > > future. The SOL presents a more elegant solution by saying that > > intellect's S/O (while SOM) created (among other) the causation > > platypus, while S/O as the 4th. level's STATIC value pose no problem. > Yes, but it isn't "intellect's S/O", it's the INDIVIDUAL's > experiential S/O. Intellect is the cognitive capacity of a human > being, not a level of Value. Difference is derived from the primary > split between Sensibility and objective Otherness. That's how we > become individuated beings who differentiate Value into the multifold > objects of our experiential reality. Or .... it isn't the individual but its LANGUAGE! No, dear Ham, either the individual subject disappears or a new subject metaphysics must be constructed. Something you possibly have done with Essentialism. > Pirsig also asks something else that is controversial in a later > paragraph (Chpt. 8) than the one quoted above: > "But if there is no substance, it must be asked, why isn't > everything chaotic? Why do our experiences _act_ as if > they inhere in something? When you pick up a glass of water, why > don't the properties of that glass go flying off in all > directions?" > In point of fact, they do. Hydrogen and oxygen atoms diffuse into the > atmosphere, photons are reflected from the glass, and thermal energy > from your hand is transferred to the water. It just so happens that > we don't experience these properties, just as we don't experience > being bombarded constantly by x-rays, rf waves, and variations in > atmospheric pressure and electro-magnetic fields. I dare say, if we > were able to experience everything going on in the cosmos, it WOULD be > "chaotic". Fortunately, we are designed to experience only a finite > fraction of these happenings, and we intellectualize only the sensible > events as "physical reality", negating all the rest as "nothigness". > That's the selective process by which human beings make order and > continuity out of non-symmetry and chaos. Matter of fact I agree, this is the cumbersome Q-physics Science belongs to the intellectual level where matter is governed by forces or fields in a most causational way. A moqist however knows that on the metaphysical plane it's about inorganic value patterns and if the experiments start to shows uncanny results it's due to S/O not being reality's ground. Dynamic/Static is and at some stage static inorganic patterns start to become dynamic IMO Bo 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/
