Greetings,
If the subject is going is time, I thought this might be pertinent
from 'The Role of Evolution, Time and Order in Pirsig's "Metaphysics
of Quality"':
"As I understand the first paradox alleged here, the MOQ
inconsistently states that time created the static universe and also
states that time is not a part of the static universe. You can't have
it both ways. The answer, I think, is that according to the
Metaphysics of Quality, time and change did NOT act to evolve the
static universe. Only Dynamic Quality did this. "Time" and "change"
are primary concepts used to describe this evolution but they do not
cause evolution any more than Newton's law of gravity causes the
earth to stick together. Except where muscle tissue is involved,
concepts do not push inorganic matter around."
(RMP)
http://www.quantonics.com/Anthony_McWatts_MoQ_Paper.html
Marsha
At 09:24 AM 5/17/2009, you wrote:
[John]
Intellectual descriptions are inevitably culturally derived. But...
In order to
conceptualize self, the Other is of absolute, logical necessity.
[Arlo]
I don't see how this is a "but". Of course, "culturally derived" means
following the assimiliation of a social symbolic code, which, of course,
derives from the mutuality of recognizing the "other".
[John]
The apprehension of difference, contrast, similarity and definition
is no doubt
shaped by culture, language and intellect, but I'd say primarily it derives
from an interactive relationship; first and foremost before language/culture
gets its greedy paws on it.
[Arlo]
Let me ask, does a dog have this apprehension? An amoeba? A carbon atom? At
what point, and how, do these apprehensions appear?
[John]
I'm with Ham on this point; to me, nothing is more EVIDENT than my thinking.
[Arlo]
I don't know, I was sitting here eating a dark chocolate bar infused
with chili
extract, and I think that in the moment of enjoying that, nothing was more
evident.
[John]
And a metaphysics that takes human perception of "time" as an absolute given
is fraught with difficulty and paradox.
[Arlo]
Of course, but you have to ACCOUNT for it. You can't simply ignore it. If you
are, for example, proposing that modern human cognition "causes" the
past, then
this MUST be explicit and substantiated in your argument. You can't simply say
"ignore time" or "ignore history".
If you want to argue that the reason it appears that human in ancient
pre-history acquired consciousness is because modern humans had it given to
them by an outside source, then your "metaphysics" must explain this. If you
account for dinosaurs by saying the bones are there because modern human
imagination willed them into existence, then you must explain this.
I'm not arguing for any particular view of "time" per se, only that when a
theory denies what we know about history (geological, anthropological, social,
etc.) then it can't just go "forget about all that stuff".
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/
.
_____________
The self is a thought-flow of ever-changing, interrelated and
interconnected, inorganic, biological, social and intellectual,
static patterns of value responding to Dynamic Quality.
.
.
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/
