----- Original Message ----
From: "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
To: [email protected]
Sent: Sunday, October 4, 2009 9:37:06 AM
Subject: [MD] Quality is Appreciation in Value
Bo
Oct3 . I 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
Bo:
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
Bo:
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?
Ron:
The point is The "static inorganic level" is an example of how looking
at experience in terms of evolutionary theory , a theory based in SOM,
can be expanded. It is expanded by looking at them in terms of personal
values.
Subjectivism dissolves the moment Ojectivism does. How can there be an
"in here" reflection of an independant "out there" universe, when that universe
is relative to our own experiences?
The universe is relative to our own experience.
Our own experience is relative to the universe.
Quite a delemma for a people used to being certain about things.
All we can therefore KNOW is our own experience.
The question is, what can we KNOW about our own experience?
RMP states we can know value and value is what ties it all together.
It even ties our old ways of thinking with new ways of thinking.
> 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.
Bo:
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.
Ron:
No seesaw..not "untenable" because Objectivism dissolves so does subjectivism.
This is what you are not understanding. The dilemma is What can we say that we
can be certain of? Pirsig says value.
> Well shit! that leaves science in a pretty fine mess!
> Wait, there are a few people who have considered the matter!
Bo:
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.
Ron:
News flash, a Q-physics is functioning and expanding as we speak.
It's all about proving their calculations make accurate predictions
in observation.
> 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).
Bo:
I say no more
Ron:
Why not? this was the part I was looking forward to you addressing.
Why do you dodge it?
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/
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/
