Ham
15 Jan. you wrote:
> 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?).
Same to you Ham, you are a rock of reason and knowledge, a
relief from the present state of the MD.
> Since we all live as existents in an SOM reality, our experience and
> conclusions establish a perspective "in the Kantian context".
SOM - or intellect - is the western world's focus, but this is no
cage, it's possible to escape it and see it all from MOQ's meta-
level.
> 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.
The one glaring inconsistency in the MOQ was its the 4th. level
that originally looked like "the cognitive capacity" and made people
of the 3rd. level sound like half-wits. The cognitive capacity (AKA
intelligence) reached an apex with Homo Sapiens and is evenly
distributed among human beings.
> 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.
The essence of Kant is contained in this passage translated from
the philosophy book I use.
"The solution Kant suggested he called Copernican: it
turns inside-out of an established way of thinking. It's not
experience that determines our geometry, arithmetics and
our causal natural laws, it's we ourselves who appear to be
geometric, arithmetic and causative. In a figurative sense
Kant again put man in the center of the world of
experience. To the degree the world is perceived as
existing in time and space, it's something created by man's
mental faculties. The world of experience is a world of
experience for US, not a world IN ITSELF."
I guess this fits your view, and must fit any sane person whose
premises are SOM.
> 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.
As said, from SOM's premises it would be silly to deny - in Kant's
words - that "the world is a world for us". I have said many times
that SOM's subjective side is the stronger. If you have read ZAMM
you will remember P. being confronted by the two S/O "horns", his
finding both untenable and then the break with SOM and the first
tentative MOQ that began with a "pre-intellectual (to be dynamic)
Q-reality / intellectual (to be static) S/O". Later in LILA this had
grown to the present MOQ where intellect's S/O had become the
highest level.
End of part 1.
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/
