Ron 1 Oct. you said
> The problem, you see is that when you consider subjectivism as "our > world/universe is a figment of our imagination" You are > misunderstanding the position. Modern physics has found that > "objective reality" does not exist as we commonly percieve it to be. ....snip I begin to see the reason for your grievance. It goes like this: SOM postulates an objective world "out there" (not necessarily concrete, the laws of nature aren't tangible) independent of what we subjects think about it. But modern physics has proved this wrong, the subject is an participator. Is that about it? No wonder you find my denouncing of (your) "objects are ideas" incomprehensible, but the MOQ goes beyond SOM's premises. Remember Phaedrus' dilemma in ZAMM? This was before "modern physics" (at least Quantum Theory) and he regarded SOM's objective "horn" the mean one and spent much time defying it (had it been today it would have been easier. Your argument defies it splendidly) before going on to the subjective horn. Here he was more superficial and said that it was "untenable" (or something like that) but today SOM's subjectivism is the real menace. Just see what you write below. > ...... That what we actually are and experience is composed of > complex interdependant" fields of force" which is a polite way of > saying "we have no idea what it is" it's mostly vast empty space, but > space seems to composed of force too. ....snip This certainly defies SOM's "materialism", but - Christ - does it undermine MOQ's "static inorganic level" which says nothing about "the nature" of the inorganic patterns, be they regarded as particles, waves, forces, fields ...whatever. Not at all and it is the MOQ we subscribe to, not the SOM! Where have you been? > So what that means is that our common view of things our "metaphysical" > assumptions are just that....assumptions. TIME and SPACE are RELATIVE > to the OBSERVER. IE. TIME and SPACE are subjective. Objects are > subjective interpretations of experience. You are really behind - at least fifty years. Don't you see that SOM's subjective "horn" is as untenable as its objective one? The outcome of an experiment may be determined by the observer, but the observer is certainly "determined" by the experimental set-up. This is a variety of the S/O see/saw that has gone up and down since the intellectual level reached its final - mind/matter - form. It's proved "untenable" again and again, but only having SOM's premises it's compulsive. > Well shit! that leaves science in a pretty fine mess! > Wait, there are a few people who have considered the matter! Not in the MOQ where science it is a STATIC intellectual pattern and not burdened with metaphysical proof. But Pirsig's idea about Q- science branches - a Q-physics f.ex. - is still-born. > What we subjectivly interpret depends on what we value. And what we > value is based largely on experience (which we have found we can not > completely and absolutely understand based on what we have found) > because....drumrole...it's dynamic and everchanging!. It may not be > defined because it can't be defined. All we can ever do with our > limited viewpoint is struggle to comprehend it by creating simplistic, > limited, exaggerated concepts (static quality). And if you say this is > nonsense...then you are about 100 yrs behind the times and are part of > the immune system. I say no more Bodvar 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/
