On Mon, May 25, 2009 at 6:12 PM, Dan Glover <[email protected]> wrote:
Hi John > As a culture, we in the West tend to be more materialistically oriented, > which is why (I think) Robert Pirsig says in LILA'S CHILD that philosophic > idealism is a better way for the MOQ to approach science. > Hi Dan, Well I'm all for better ways. I'm just feeling my way here, but there seems to be a lot of back and forth on the issue of idealism vs. pragmatism. I'm looking forward to getting to know both much better in the coming weeks, but it's interesting to me after all I've read touting William James and the Pragmatist as more in line with the MoQ, you offer up this tidbit. I'm gonna have to get that Lila's Child... Dan: > I want to stop you here. The way I read it, you're claiming there's an > external reality called space and time and you as an isolated space/time > observer can discover and implement laws and theories like relativity that > operate independently. > No, not at all. None of that makes sense to me. "External reality"? What does it look like? External to what? Myself? No, I don't buy that. And I certainly don't see myself as an isolated space/time observer. I completely agree with Pirsig's refutation of SOM. > > However, the MOQ tells us that ideas do not originate out of external > matter. Matter originates out of ideas. Look at it this way: Einstein didn't > see a beam of light bend as it passed by a star but he knew it would. > Reality corresponds to our vision of it. We are not isolated observers > sitting on high looking down on all creation. > The point I was making pertained to the relativity of matter and time and the futility of observing one without the other. > Dan: > Though I've corresponded with Robert Pirsig a number of times I've never > met him in person so I prefer showing him the respect of not using his > nickname until he gives me leave to do so. I know, I know. Blame it on my > father for instilling a sense of respect in me. I do. no disrespect intended Dan. I revere the man. Perhaps too much sometime which comes with its own static baggage. One reason I revere Professor Pirsig is his total expose of something that bugs me much in modern times - the foolishness of celebrity . But how does one minimize the issues of celebrity while at the same time honestly honoring the deservedly celebrated? It's a conundrum of sorts. We feel silly and awkward and unsure sometimes. "Bob" is a term I wouldn't have thought to use myself except I've observed others using it as well and honestly, I have felt the informality has communicated something to me of the Great One's warmth and accessibility that comes through in all his writings and I appreciate very much. > Be that as it may, I think you'll agree that the theory of relativity will > only survive until something better comes along. Such is the nature of > science. So it's easy to see we do not inhabit a reality of concrete form. > It changes according to how we perceive reality. > Yes. Well I've been thinking about this a great deal this evening... I wonder if perhaps we have been de-barking the wrong tree. I will compose my thoughts and explain myself more clearly in the near future about what I see as some possible problems with the Metaphysics of Quality getting too caught up in ultimate declarations about Reality. Thanks for caring Dan, you too are a PoQ. John 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/
