At 05:48 PM 1/26/2009, you wrote:
Hi Marsha --
Which intelligentsia are you suggesting have such power? Maybe
you're thinking of the Economists, they are calling themselves the
Intellectuals these days. And these days the Economists with real
power are a part of the Washington Celebrity crowd. Social through
and through. That's probably not right, but neither is your
paragraph. I should have just snipped it.
By "intelligentsia" I meant elitists who call themselves
philosophers. I was suggesting that they might think twice about
advocating the dominance of intellect over society in an unstable
world where competition for power prevails. As a Pirsigian, you
view Social and Intellectual as levels of Quality vying for
power. I don't. To the extent that social behavior is
intellectual, it merely reflects the intellect of its individual
members. There is no need to consider biological, social, and
intellectual processes in a competitive struggle for world
dominance. We have enough of that already.
I agree with Bo that the levels are important and that the MOQ
perspective is above the level hierarchy. But I think a stronger
impact can be made from understanding the nature of the patterns that
inhabit the levels. So here I agree with you. Once the nature of
the patterns is understood, the usefulness of the level structure
becomes obvious. I am concerned that the patterns are seen as
independent (inherently existing) entities, just a new name for
objects. This I think is the wrong view. RMP has stated that there
are no thing-in-themselves in the MOQ, and he has mentioned Buddhism
and emptiness, though he has not stated my interpretation directly.
I like the definition of static as 'showing or admitting of little
or no change', and not 'absence change or movement.' The patterns
that are overlaid onto experience are static. And DQ I think of as
Quality whose dynamics is spontaneous.
Emergence and change are fundamental characteristics of existence
(or what I call experiential reality). They are the consequence of
experiencing reality as a series of events that begin and end in a
time continuum. That continuum is a dimension of experience itself,
not a property of an objective universe.
I agree if you are not talking about single series of events. I see
events mutually dependent on cause and conditions which also have
mutually dependent cause and conditions. This is why I am concerned
by your use of the word 'finite'.
Time is interesting. Time is relative. The future doesn't
exist. The past is like an afterimage swept up into a pattern. As
far as I can understand, it is illusion.
Ultimate reality is not a process of discrete objects coming into
existence and running their course through history. That's the
intellectual illusion of human awareness.
I agree, although I might use the word conceptualization instead of
awareness.
I don't know what "Quality whose dynamics is spontaneous" is
supposed to mean. Does spontaneity mean "dynamic" to you?
Yes, I see Dynamic as meaning a state of spontaneity.
If Quality is ultimately "dynamic", why do we experience its
patterns as "static"?
To create a sense of stability where one cannot be assured. It
works most of the time, because we define the rules so we can play
the game successfully. The rules are defined to our
specification. If they work they become a pattern. If they don't
work or lose their functionality, they slide into oblivion (or
history). This is my interpretation.
You said you "regard time as a static-pattern-of-value overlaid onto
experience." Can you explain how experiencing things and events in
sequence is static?
A pattern seems to be a static-making mechanism. A tree, for
instance, has a long process of growth with many attributes and
aggregates. While a static pattern of 'tree' will differ from person
to person depending on past experience, on the most superficial level
there is shared pattern of what is a tree. And on a superficial
level we just overlay this basic shared pattern of tree onto our
experiencing a tree. We impose the finite where none exist. Am I
making sense?
And can you give me an example of what you call a Dynamic Quality
experience? (Kindly avoid Pirg's infamous "hot seat" analogy.)
A dynamic experience is one without thought. You are experiencing
and reacting without thinking. I don't know what else to say. I've
had brief little moments in all kind of everyday occurrences. It's
without analysis. It's spontaneous. More likely when I paint, but
once while driving on a curvy, country road. It was incredible. But
these are a few moments, not a steady stream.
Example Ham, example. What exactly do you mean by
finite? Dependency and change makes an object other than a
thing-in-itself. The way we perceive things, as independent
entities, is mistaken. Our reflections of entities as independent
is also wrong. I do not regard time as an inherent principle of
the physical world. I regard time as a static-pattern-of-value
overlaid onto experience.
Do you accept the dictionary definition? "Finite: 1.a) having
definite or definable limits; b) having a limited nature of
existence; 2. completely determinable in theory or in fact by
counting, measurement or thought; niether infinite nor
infinitesimal." (Incidentally, I agree totally with the above statements.)
If you are using the terms 'discrete' and 'finite' as indicating that
their are objects that have independent existence from their own
side, i disagree. Otherwise, there seems to be agreement.
IF ESSENCE IS NOT ACCESSIBLE TO HUMAN BEINGS, HOW IS ESSENCE
ACCESSIBLE TO YOU AND YOUR THEORY???
A theory in the absence of available proof is a
hypothesis. Theories are what philosophers construct to account for
what is not empirically evident. My theory of Essence is supported
by the logic that "nothing can come from nothingness". Man, value,
difference, and physical reality are either the effects of an
infinite regression of causes (which is illogical) or they are
derived from a uncaused source. I have opted for the latter, not
only because it gives my ontology a solid metaphysical foundation
but because it suggests a logical purpose for man's existence as a
free agent of Value.
I cannot agree to logical purpose or primary purpose or any kind of
purpose. You can create a hypothesis, but it would be
speculation. I do not know, so I try to be aware of the present
experience. That's good enough for me.
Yes, I agree that the value experienced is relative. But no
things, only events, processes and static patterns of value.
"Things" are really events or processes, if you consider that they
are substantiated by atomic particles or energy bundles in
motion. And even your "static patterns of value" are subject to
emergence, change, and dissolution. Again, all of existence is a
dynamic system.
I don't think you need to go to atomic particles or energy bundles to
understand that all is process. I am beginning to wonder how I ever
thought otherwise.
Thank you Ham. I appreciate the opportunity to explain my
point-of-view. There seems to be places where our understanding overlaps.
Marsha
.
_____________
Look, there's no metaphysics on earth like chocolates.
(Fernando Pessoa)
.
.
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/
