Bo --
You think and write with such clarity, it's amazing to me that your ontology
can be so confused (or is "conflated" the proper word?).
On 1/14 you wrote:
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.
Since we all live as existents in an SOM reality, our experience and
conclusions establish a perspective "in the Kantian context". There should
be no disagreement as to how this SOM reality is constituted because it is
the world we relate to and interact with on a daily basis. Yet, in our
discussions, you persist in reassembling commonly acknowledged attributes of
human perception into an artificial paradigm that "dehumanizes" them,
stripping man of his full cognitive capacities. Now I realize that your
worldview is heavily influenced by Pirsig's Quality thesis. But if we can't
agree on the constitutents of empirical reality, how can we ever expect to
reach accord on metaphysical reality?
I assume your comment to D. Swift concerned his assertion that "Quality is a
physical thing", which may have been in deference to Chris's "physical
theory of causation". In any case, if "Time, along with Space and
Causation" are modes of human perception (i.e., experience), then Time is
not a "subjective filter" a priori to the subject, it is integral to the
nature of subjectivity. Or, more precisely, space/time is the dimensional
factor of human experience that limits subjective awareness to the "here"
and "now". "Filter" is a useful term for describing the limited range of
the brain and sensory system in interpreting experience. Because sensory
information is filtered by this organic limitation, experience is
incremental, and we perceive (intellectualize) objective reality
incrementally, as a continuum of events occurring serially in space,
relative to ourselves.
[Ham, previously]:
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 ...
[Bo]:
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.
Yes, dear Bo, man is the measure of Truth and Value in existence. And man's
"being in the world" is Value's interaction with the subject, whether Pirsig
had second thoughts about that concept or not. As for Dynamic Value
spawning Static Values, I'll admit to total incomprehension of what that
means. But this postulate, like the "intellectual level", verges on
metaphysical theory and should not discombobulate what we already know about
SOM reality.
I also suggested (to Marsha) that we have philosophy because there is no
alternative to words for explaining reality.
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"
If you're implying that words are useless, why are we talking? Language is
only the tool of social communication -- certainly not the ground of
existence. Subjective awareness isn't the ground of existence, either, but
it's the sensible locus of experience which defines it.
[Ham]:
.... 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.
The way I see it, Value is what stands between subject and object,
alternately attracting or repelling the subjective psyche, depending on the
subject's value-sensibility. What we seek and what we avoid in existence
really has little to do with intellect. It's our differentiated
psycho-emotional relationship to otherness (in my ontology, the Value of
Essence). Being-aware is what we ARE, and Value is the essence of this
interdependency. ...
That's how we become individuated beings who differentiate
Value into the multifold objects of our experiential reality.
[Bo]:
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.
Well, Bo, thus far I've avoided bringing it up because you didn't want to
discuss it, but Essentialism is a new metaphysics. I don't call it a
"subject" metaphysics, although it is definitely more subjective than
objective. It posits Sensibility and Being as One in Essence, and it is
based on Cusa's first principle which is the "coincidence of contrariety".
Existence is the actualized or "differentiated mode" of Essence.
[Ham, previously]:
...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 "nothingness". That's the selective
process by which human beings make order and
continuity out of non-symmetry and chaos.
[Bo]
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.
I suspect we agree on more than either of us admits. These statements are
most revealing. Perhaps you will explain for me how you distinguish
"dynamic" from "static" in the context of values. Are they meant to infer
"transcendent" or "non-transcendent", differentiated or non-differentiated,
or simply definable versus undefinable? I've never asked before, and these
labels have always puzzled me, especially as I regard Essence as immutable
and
unchanging, whereas existence is evolutionary and transitory or provisional.
Thanks, Bo. Once again I deceive myself into thinking we are making
progress.
Dare I say...
Essentially yours?
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/
